Not exactly sure what you mean... there are noise control options
Sure there are. They are there to give you the illusion of control!:D Seriously, the user has no control of image processing before a certain point. After that, yes, some.
not talking down the 7D by any means. if I went canon that is the camera I would proably start with. just discussing.
And I am part of Canon's success story!D I love the 7D, but I will not get it, or a successor, until I find that my 40D and lenses, and me, cannot do something at least as well as it can.
Sure there are. They are there to give you the illusion of control!:D Seriously, the user has no control of image processing before a certain point. After that, yes, some.
Are you saying that Nikon offers lossy compression for raw files? Considering that raw is for people who care the most about their image quality, that seems completely absurd. Lossy compression is for final distribution JPEGs, not for sources or intermediate stages.
Lossless compression is compression. It's what .zip files, .rar files, and other compressed archive formats use. It doesn't generally compress as radically as lossy compression, but it guarantees that you get back exactly what you put into it, which for raw files is exactly what I want.
Oh boy. Somebody tell Craig that his 5D mk2 is using lossy (EDIT: why did i say lossy? I meant lossless..) compression, and then stand back... (Or maybe you shoot JPG?)
;-)
What I said was this: Nikon offers *all three*. Compressed, lossless compressed, and un-compressed. Canon has zero options, just lossless compressed as far as I know. Maybe their flagships are un-compressed, but they started using lossy compression on their RAW files for amateur bodies a generation or two ago.
And I also have to disagree with respect to the *reason* that I may (or may not) decide to shoot RAW in the first place- I shoot events and portraits ALL THE TIME with full RAW compression turned on; in fact Nikon's RAW compression is so effective that I've had clean RAW files take up less space than noisy JPG files. (Just under 1 MB per MP, in fact.)
It has nothing to do with reduced image quality; in fact I shoot JPG all the time whenever I am confident enough in my ability to rock the lighting and in-camera processing. But the reason I shoot RAW is 90% of the time, just to get my white balance back. And the other 10% of the time, (harsh sunlight) ...I just need a little bit more dynamic range than a JPG can offer.
Trust me, I pay close attention to the image quality and as a landscape photographer by hobby, I know where the advantage is in un-compressed, 14-bit RAW files. There's a time and place for that. But personally when shooting events I prefer by far Nikon's abundance of compression options instead of Canon's lack therof. It's that simple.
=Matt=
BTW, Andy, what did I say that was wrong? (Aside from any subjective opinions, which can't be measured in those terms...)
They're definitely not lossy RAW on the MKII. By the behavior of the files they're lossless compressed (as are most cameras) Just like LZW compression on TIFF files, it mathematically labels and compresses areas of similar data (especially flat monotone areas and out of focus areas) to save space, but it takes extra time to load the file. Simply put, the less detail, the less bits needed to describe something.
A technical example is I just created an 8x10 TIFF @ 300DPI (2400 x 3000) with no compression, and it takes 20.6MB of disk space. With LZW compression, it takes 97.4KB but loses nothing and is no different. (yes kilobytes) This is how fractals makes such smaller files... it's represented to the computer with math and not actual image data. So, in reality you're giving the computer instructions on how to draw an image, rather than actually giving it a full sized optical photo.
OK so here's what the MK II puts out (give it to me, baby):
Real world examples (#RAW / #JPEG )
A pure black image (lens cap on/ISO 200): 19.83MB / 3.26MB
Edge to edge detailed image of a brick wall (ISO200): 30.41MB / 14.51MB
Biggest RAW I've ever had (ISO125): 40.82MB / No JPG
Personally, I'm very glad for lossless compression
They're definitely not lossy RAW on the MKII. By the behavior of the files they're lossless compressed (as are most cameras) Just like LZW compression on TIFF files, it mathematically labels and compresses areas of similar data (especially flat monotone areas and out of focus areas) to save space, but it takes extra time to load the file. Simply put, the less detail, the less bits needed to describe something.
A technical example is I just created an 8x10 TIFF @ 300DPI (2400 x 3000) with no compression, and it takes 20.6MB of disk space. With LZW compression, it takes 97.4KB but loses nothing and is no different. (yes kilobytes) This is how fractals makes such smaller files... it's represented to the computer with math and not actual image data. So, in reality you're giving the computer instructions on how to draw an image, rather than actually giving it a full sized optical photo.
OK so here's what the MK II puts out (give it to me, baby):
Real world examples (#RAW / #JPEG )
A pure black image (lens cap on/ISO 200): 19.83MB / 3.26MB
Edge to edge detailed image of a brick wall (ISO200): 30.41MB / 14.51MB
Biggest RAW I've ever had (ISO125): 40.82MB / No JPG
Personally, I'm very glad for lossless compression
You're right, I misspoke, I meant lossless compression. I remember hearing it in some specs a generation or two ago, so yeah it's lossless but still compressed.
Honestly I highly doubt the human eye could tell the difference between 100% un-compressed and lossless or even lossly compression, when a file is processed properly. I welcome anyone to make two prints, scan them, and show me the difference whether it be artifacting or aliasing, etc.
But, to each their own. Storage is cheap as many have pointed out, so if you wanna shoot high quality, well heck my D300 can record TIF files even, how about that? Those puppies come out to about 40 MB, and I'm only at 12 megapixels!
Anyways, whatever works! Personally my workflow and shooting style is very SOOC-oriented, and my goal is always to do as little processing as possible and be as efficient as possible in general. So the only reason I shoot RAW is to get my white balance back, with a tiny bit of highlight recovery sometimes...
Honestly I highly doubt the human eye could tell the difference between 100% un-compressed and lossless or even lossly compression, when a file is processed properly.
That's kind of a strange comment that makes me think you really don't understand compression. Lossless compression by definition does not change the image at all, it just stores it more compactly. When it is decompressed, you get back exactly what went in. So lossless compresson is purely a matter of storing the information in a more compact form. If the human eye, or even a computer program, could find any difference between an original, never-compressed image, and a copy that had been losslessly compressed and decompressed, then it wasn't really lossless.
Lossy compression, on the other hand, does affect the image, and it does so to a varying degree depending on how heavily you compress the file. We've probably all seen JPEG artifacts in images online that have been compressed too much (either out of ignorance or intentionally to meet file size requirements). In the digital cameras I've used, there's always a menu option to choose JPEG quality (which is basically the inverse of the compression level, of course). If you set it to the highest quality level the degradation is probably fairly unnoticeable.
I doubt whether "proper processing" could undo or even really reduce the effects of excessive lossy compression. You could transform the damage into a perhaps less irritating form, so that the image becomes more pleasant to look at, but you can't restore detail once it's been lost.
Clients for their satisfaction do ask about gear and when deciding between different portfolios photographer with better gear has advantage over others. Most people believe high MP means better quality, so if you are dealing with one of them you got advantage if you have higher MP in your Camera than his/her Cell phone:D
I saw Youtube clip of some photographer who ruined a wedding photos and she was asked about gear which according to judge was cheap entry level camera which went against the photographer.
But i totally agree portfolio matters most but there are other factors too.
Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal
Clients for their satisfaction do ask about gear and when deciding between different portfolios photographer with better gear has advantage over others. .
Your first argument was high MP will win over client with no mentioning of portfolio. I may agree with above because not many clients will ask about camera make, neither do they have full knowledege.
Most people believe high MP means better quality, so if you are dealing with one of them you got advantage if you have higher MP in your Camera than his/her Cell phone:D .
Maybe I'm a different fish all together. High MP will not impress me. Composition is always my first top priority when I'm looking at someone images. High MP does help.
I saw Youtube clip of some photographer who ruined a wedding photos and she was asked about gear which according to judge was cheap entry level camera which went against the photographer.
If you're refering to Joe Brown, you are misquoting the case. The photographer was found incompetent unless it was another case.
Maybe I'm a different fish all together. High MP will not impress me. Composition is always my first top priority when I'm looking at someone images. High MP does help.
Yes of course that is my priority too, but a client who is looking to publish image on billboard won't be satisfied with one factor, i.e beautifully composed photos. It depends on needs of clients too and it is not necessary that what we prefer might be preferred by clients. I cannot give him 1MP beautifully composed photo to put up on large billboard.
If you're refering to Joe Brown, you are misquoting the case. The photographer was found incompetent unless it was another case.
Yes i am talking about that case, personally i don't find any problem with composition of photos they showed, if i remember correctly Judge asked why she did not used high end cameras like 1D. 7D:D, 5D and why she was relying on XTi (which i used for 3 years and results were awesome).
I hope you got my point i am not comparing creativity of photographer with expensive gear,. Keeping creativity constant and everything else remains same... photographer with better gear wins the deal
Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal
Certainly not neccessary so. Lets agree to disagree. But if client merely based on camera gear check lists which he has the prerogative, then he is allowing himself a very bad deal. But that is his choice.
Pse don't quote the extreme of 1mp camera. It never started with such low pixel anyway.
Certainly not neccessary so. Lets agree to disagree. But if client merely based on camera gear check lists which he has the prerogative, then he is allowing himself a very bad deal. But that is his choice.
Pse don't quote the extreme of 1mp camera. It never started with such low pixel anyway.
Suppose there are 5 portfolios equally great in composition and creativity, photographer who has invested in superb gear will mention his equipment to gain competitive edge over others and client will be confident to invest on him, and that is just one factor of winning the deal I am not saying gear is more important than creativity of photographer.
Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal
Certainly not neccessary so. Lets agree to disagree. But if client merely based on camera gear check lists which he has the prerogative, then he is allowing himself a very bad deal. But that is his choice.
Pse don't quote the extreme of 1mp camera. It never started with such low pixel anyway.
Comments
not talking down the 7D by any means. if I went canon that is the camera I would proably start with. just discussing.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Nah - Matthew's just wrong
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Sure there are. They are there to give you the illusion of control!:D Seriously, the user has no control of image processing before a certain point. After that, yes, some.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
And I am part of Canon's success story!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
What are you talking about?
It was being compared to a full frame chip
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_mark_iv
1D not 1DS ... typo on my part
That's where the extra crop room comes into play.
I use a Canon 300L f2.8 with a Canon 2X tc for most of my wildlife shots.
Sometimes that's still not enough.
The full frame.
The crop from it.
I do wish that it had the iso abilities that the 5DMKII does, but I guess everything has a compromise.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
;-)
What I said was this: Nikon offers *all three*. Compressed, lossless compressed, and un-compressed. Canon has zero options, just lossless compressed as far as I know. Maybe their flagships are un-compressed, but they started using lossy compression on their RAW files for amateur bodies a generation or two ago.
And I also have to disagree with respect to the *reason* that I may (or may not) decide to shoot RAW in the first place- I shoot events and portraits ALL THE TIME with full RAW compression turned on; in fact Nikon's RAW compression is so effective that I've had clean RAW files take up less space than noisy JPG files. (Just under 1 MB per MP, in fact.)
It has nothing to do with reduced image quality; in fact I shoot JPG all the time whenever I am confident enough in my ability to rock the lighting and in-camera processing. But the reason I shoot RAW is 90% of the time, just to get my white balance back. And the other 10% of the time, (harsh sunlight) ...I just need a little bit more dynamic range than a JPG can offer.
Trust me, I pay close attention to the image quality and as a landscape photographer by hobby, I know where the advantage is in un-compressed, 14-bit RAW files. There's a time and place for that. But personally when shooting events I prefer by far Nikon's abundance of compression options instead of Canon's lack therof. It's that simple.
=Matt=
BTW, Andy, what did I say that was wrong? (Aside from any subjective opinions, which can't be measured in those terms...)
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
They're definitely not lossy RAW on the MKII. By the behavior of the files they're lossless compressed (as are most cameras) Just like LZW compression on TIFF files, it mathematically labels and compresses areas of similar data (especially flat monotone areas and out of focus areas) to save space, but it takes extra time to load the file. Simply put, the less detail, the less bits needed to describe something.
A technical example is I just created an 8x10 TIFF @ 300DPI (2400 x 3000) with no compression, and it takes 20.6MB of disk space. With LZW compression, it takes 97.4KB but loses nothing and is no different. (yes kilobytes) This is how fractals makes such smaller files... it's represented to the computer with math and not actual image data. So, in reality you're giving the computer instructions on how to draw an image, rather than actually giving it a full sized optical photo.
OK so here's what the MK II puts out (give it to me, baby):
Real world examples (#RAW / #JPEG )
A pure black image (lens cap on/ISO 200): 19.83MB / 3.26MB
Edge to edge detailed image of a brick wall (ISO200): 30.41MB / 14.51MB
Biggest RAW I've ever had (ISO125): 40.82MB / No JPG
Personally, I'm very glad for lossless compression
Honestly I highly doubt the human eye could tell the difference between 100% un-compressed and lossless or even lossly compression, when a file is processed properly. I welcome anyone to make two prints, scan them, and show me the difference whether it be artifacting or aliasing, etc.
But, to each their own. Storage is cheap as many have pointed out, so if you wanna shoot high quality, well heck my D300 can record TIF files even, how about that? Those puppies come out to about 40 MB, and I'm only at 12 megapixels!
Anyways, whatever works! Personally my workflow and shooting style is very SOOC-oriented, and my goal is always to do as little processing as possible and be as efficient as possible in general. So the only reason I shoot RAW is to get my white balance back, with a tiny bit of highlight recovery sometimes...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
That's kind of a strange comment that makes me think you really don't understand compression. Lossless compression by definition does not change the image at all, it just stores it more compactly. When it is decompressed, you get back exactly what went in. So lossless compresson is purely a matter of storing the information in a more compact form. If the human eye, or even a computer program, could find any difference between an original, never-compressed image, and a copy that had been losslessly compressed and decompressed, then it wasn't really lossless.
Lossy compression, on the other hand, does affect the image, and it does so to a varying degree depending on how heavily you compress the file. We've probably all seen JPEG artifacts in images online that have been compressed too much (either out of ignorance or intentionally to meet file size requirements). In the digital cameras I've used, there's always a menu option to choose JPEG quality (which is basically the inverse of the compression level, of course). If you set it to the highest quality level the degradation is probably fairly unnoticeable.
I doubt whether "proper processing" could undo or even really reduce the effects of excessive lossy compression. You could transform the damage into a perhaps less irritating form, so that the image becomes more pleasant to look at, but you can't restore detail once it's been lost.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Client ask about camera brand instead of convince by portfolio? Must be a weird client.
...especially when as in your case the portfolio is god-given!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I saw Youtube clip of some photographer who ruined a wedding photos and she was asked about gear which according to judge was cheap entry level camera which went against the photographer.
But i totally agree portfolio matters most but there are other factors too.
My Gallery
Your first argument was high MP will win over client with no mentioning of portfolio. I may agree with above because not many clients will ask about camera make, neither do they have full knowledege.
Maybe I'm a different fish all together. High MP will not impress me. Composition is always my first top priority when I'm looking at someone images. High MP does help.
If you're refering to Joe Brown, you are misquoting the case. The photographer was found incompetent unless it was another case.
Yes of course that is my priority too, but a client who is looking to publish image on billboard won't be satisfied with one factor, i.e beautifully composed photos. It depends on needs of clients too and it is not necessary that what we prefer might be preferred by clients. I cannot give him 1MP beautifully composed photo to put up on large billboard.
Yes i am talking about that case, personally i don't find any problem with composition of photos they showed, if i remember correctly Judge asked why she did not used high end cameras like 1D. 7D:D, 5D and why she was relying on XTi (which i used for 3 years and results were awesome).
I hope you got my point i am not comparing creativity of photographer with expensive gear,. Keeping creativity constant and everything else remains same... photographer with better gear wins the deal
My Gallery
Certainly not neccessary so. Lets agree to disagree. But if client merely based on camera gear check lists which he has the prerogative, then he is allowing himself a very bad deal. But that is his choice.
Pse don't quote the extreme of 1mp camera. It never started with such low pixel anyway.
Suppose there are 5 portfolios equally great in composition and creativity, photographer who has invested in superb gear will mention his equipment to gain competitive edge over others and client will be confident to invest on him, and that is just one factor of winning the deal I am not saying gear is more important than creativity of photographer.
My Gallery
Link to my Smugmug site
Consumer started at 0.8MP / 640 x 480
Ok, I maybe wrong. But what Awais using extreme eg. comparing 18MP to 1MP camera becomes a useless and meaningless argument in his context.
No, actually i was saying good composition is useless if technical specifications don't meet requirements to print on billboard.
cheers
My Gallery
Yeah I agree. I was just playing devil's advocate.
@awais that is also true!