its a great test image. a white bird, direct sun. and everyone thinks you need to shoot raw to preserve white feather detail. not on the a74 and useing Very fine Jpeg.
so you have obviously compared the both files. and see little difference when applying the same adjustments to the jpeg.
May 18, 2023
439
-
-
you need to ask "useful information" in the field. which is also camera model dependant.
-
it was a great image with shadow covering half the bird. so clean shadow detail was much better with the jpeg , got them every time . they tried and tried for days with one person finally posting an image near identical. but as illah demonstrated he just posted the embedded jpeg ,so it might have been a dishonest conversion anyway as i hadnt even thought of that. back in the days of my Pentax K7 no program could produce the very fine detail the incamera sharpening could produce.
-
-
No feathers were ruffled. I was pointing out that you do not practise what you preach and you are again proving my point :-)
-
All that image does is provide further proof of my point #2 earlier.
"I have also posted on numerous occasions that with today's modern cameras and with a large enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice looking sooc jpeg in good light. The raw file you posted was of a scene in good light."
Point #5 described a better test image but you have never posted one because it will clearly show the benefits of raw over sooc jpeg.
-
Perhaps you are not aware but the world for me does not revolve around American spelling :-D
Where I live when used as a noun it is "practice" and when used as a verb, as it was in my sentence, it is "practise" :-)
-
You don't know what everyone thinks.
One needs to work on focusing and exposure skills.
-
Then, as a writer of real English, it would have been better to write "if you were to practise", assuming that your schooling included English grammar.
-
I didn't demonstrate that. You shouldn't accuse people of cheating based on nothing.
-
That is your opinion as is your right to have.
What I wrote conveyed the meaning and context correctly.
In any case you are continuing to prove my point that you are the type of person who does not practise what they preach, so I don't take you seriously.
You suggest to people to not reply to my posts and then you make a fool of yourself by continuing to do so. How dumb is that? lol :-D
-
And here you are yet again with your inimitably rude and confrontational style!
At one time in the era of the Exposure Triangle diatribe I was 100% on your side vs. the others - but expect no more support from me, now that you have made it very personal with that last sentence.
I await your next pathetic attempt at the coveted thread-winning Last Word.
-
This is comprehensively underexposed:
-
I told him so, he prefers to ignore it. Maybe he was tricked by zebras or histogram. Anyway, he dialed -0.3 EV EC.
Also, this isn't raw, this is lossy:
f/4 wouldn't be my choice either.
-
Yep, you are continuing to prove my point :-D
-
no its not its perfectly exposed.
-
its perfectly exposed as i seen it. pushing the histogram to the right is not exposure accuracy.
-
Your definition of exposure is different to Jim's.
Your definition of exposure is how dark or light a photo looks on the medium it is being viewed on. That is actually image lightness not exposure.
Exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
A lot more light could have been put onto the sensor without clipping the raw data.
