Digital BW, The Print

Perhaps the "RAW gives" presumption is where I just had to say let's stop
and talk here. I don't think you should be thinking that I am supporting
Jpeg over raw. A developer can ONLY give you something if there is something
to work with. There were on the B&W side many choices to be made when it
came to a developer. RAW allows you one to explore. It is the program that
gives that file life. And still as you point out, there does need to be
someone behind the process. 

 

The original comments were not being made RAW vs JPEG but rather what RAW
gave you. We were looking at film vs digital in a tonal sense. We had not
gone down the path of format; 35mm vs 8x10, 1/2 frame vs Full frame.    

 

 "So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to false as to be incorrect..
;-)   David Tobie" 

 

context, context, context.


I would not include a Jpeg in a workflow that would render from such a long
exposure as the photos sited nor would ye, Ol Codger Bob. RAW is presumed.
Since RAW is presumed it can give me no more than the exposure I give it.
The program that processes the RAW file can do no more than it can do with
the exposure that I give it. Both file and program can only act as devices
to hold that which is given even if they present the information
differently. The aqueous to digital can only go so far with just a simple
film developer, because as LR processes the image, it starts to add the
aqueous print side including toning, etc. Which is not meant to be included
in the give side : )  

 

I didn't see on Berts' site discussion of output of his files, just original
capture. Perhaps his site needs an additional visit. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Johnston
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:08 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  

You say "Raw gives you nothing." BUT, it DOES give you a lot more than JPG,
so that is not a true statement. 

The person who decides to use RAW instead of JPG is the person who is more
interested in producing a better image. Because of the ability of lightroom
to compensate for poor exposure, they still get a better print, than with
JPG. Then, that person will learn more about exposure than the person who
insists on using JPG, as time passes, and do better in the future.

Plus, because Lightroom does not modify the original JPG. Even if the camera
they use only makes JPGs, as they learn about exposure or use Lightroom and
their camera better, they can go back to produce better prints. Thus it is
best to encourage everyone to use RAW if they possibly can. Get them to use
it, and then teach them how to use it properly by leading them to the zone
system.

Ye Ol' Codger Bob

________________________________
From: E.Neilsen <e.neilsen2@att. <mailto:e.neilsen2%40att.net> net>
To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 5:17:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

David, RAW is a format that allows for more information to be maintained but
it gives you nothing in terms of exposure. If you screw up your exposure it
is still screwed. The information hitting the sensor is of course maintained
in the file and compared to a JPEG there is so much more to work with it is
crazy not to use it, but I stand by my answer in that RAW gives you nothing,
but rather you give yourself data to work with when you make a proper
exposure and use a RAW processor. 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

www.ericneilsenphot ography.com

skype me with ejprinter

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of C D
Tobie
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:07 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

On Nov 15, 2009, at 10:07 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> RAW does not give you anything.

Actually RAW gives you high bit, which is the whole value of it. But 
if there is a high bit file behind the visible veil of 8 bits per 
channel (all that you can actually see of any file, high bit or not), 
then its the adjustments you can make to the RAW, high bit file, 
without it breaking up as an 8 bit per channel file will, that is the 
value of RAW. So yes, HDR-like capabilities are one form of taking 
advantage of RAW; as is opening the shadows and finding more shadow 
detail instead of just noise, or salvaging highlights without creating 
problems elsewhere. So I'd suggest your answer is also so close to 
false as to be incorrect.. ;-)

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@datacolor. <mailto:CDTobie% 40datacolor. com> com

----------

Datacolor
www.datacolor. com/Spyder3

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]