Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Raw or jpeg
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 531310" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>I truly don't know what they were trying to show. </p><p></p><p>Rereading the article I believe this is what they <strong><em>did</em></strong>, even if it was unintentional... </p><p></p><p>Both images were shot at ISO 3200 with just the body cap on the camera. Native ISO on the Canon they used is 200. So, what they recorded in each case was a pure black image that had ISO amplification applied to it, and in the case of the 70D they used, ISO amplification at the top end of the camera's usable range. </p><p><em></em></p><p><em>(You see, when you increase your ISO you are doing nothing more than <u>turning up the light volume</u> on your camera making it easier to "see" things in the dark. Like on an amplifier, when you turn up the volume you introduce some level of distortion (i.e. "noise"), and the more you amplify the more you distort - how bad it gets depends on how good the camera/amplifier.)</em></p><p></p><p>Now they have two overamplified photos of nothing that they decided to amplify again by applying 5 stops of exposure to them. This made the noise visible while further distorting it. What you see is how much more the noise distorts on a JPEG than on a RAW file. I don't know what that really shows, or what conclusions can be drawn by it, but there you have it.</p><p></p><p>In my example above I shot my original images in my D610's native ISO of 100. This meant I had zero noise/distortion in my original so when I amplified it the result was still fairly clean on both ends, even there was an extreme loss of detail in the JPEG. I tried it again using ISO 6400 on my D610 and here are the results with the "black" image amplified by +5EV, and this time I remembered to turn off all in-camera JPEG functions...</p><p></p><p><strong>RAW</strong></p><p><strong>[ATTACH]197764[/ATTACH]</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>JPEG</strong></p><p><strong>[ATTACH]197765[/ATTACH]</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p></p><p>(shrugging my shoulders)</p><p></p><p>I'm still not sure it does anything to further any argument about RAW vs. JPEG. Perhaps it says more about what may have been applied in-camera via the Canon JPEG processing than anything else (the author never mentions what camera profiles may have been used).</p><p></p><p>Again, I think the original blog post is more confusing than anything else and presents nothing but what could very well have been a drunken experiment one night on the couch.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 531310, member: 9240"] I truly don't know what they were trying to show. Rereading the article I believe this is what they [B][I]did[/I][/B], even if it was unintentional... Both images were shot at ISO 3200 with just the body cap on the camera. Native ISO on the Canon they used is 200. So, what they recorded in each case was a pure black image that had ISO amplification applied to it, and in the case of the 70D they used, ISO amplification at the top end of the camera's usable range. [I] (You see, when you increase your ISO you are doing nothing more than [U]turning up the light volume[/U] on your camera making it easier to "see" things in the dark. Like on an amplifier, when you turn up the volume you introduce some level of distortion (i.e. "noise"), and the more you amplify the more you distort - how bad it gets depends on how good the camera/amplifier.)[/I] Now they have two overamplified photos of nothing that they decided to amplify again by applying 5 stops of exposure to them. This made the noise visible while further distorting it. What you see is how much more the noise distorts on a JPEG than on a RAW file. I don't know what that really shows, or what conclusions can be drawn by it, but there you have it. In my example above I shot my original images in my D610's native ISO of 100. This meant I had zero noise/distortion in my original so when I amplified it the result was still fairly clean on both ends, even there was an extreme loss of detail in the JPEG. I tried it again using ISO 6400 on my D610 and here are the results with the "black" image amplified by +5EV, and this time I remembered to turn off all in-camera JPEG functions... [B]RAW [ATTACH=CONFIG]197764._xfImport[/ATTACH] JPEG [ATTACH=CONFIG]197765._xfImport[/ATTACH] [/B] (shrugging my shoulders) I'm still not sure it does anything to further any argument about RAW vs. JPEG. Perhaps it says more about what may have been applied in-camera via the Canon JPEG processing than anything else (the author never mentions what camera profiles may have been used). Again, I think the original blog post is more confusing than anything else and presents nothing but what could very well have been a drunken experiment one night on the couch. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Raw or jpeg
Top
