Feeling happy with my new Typhoon h3

[Mike Irish]

I’d like to present a different “view” from Photo’s.

Images viewed on any screen are relative to what we are accustomed to seeing. Provided the view screen has the resolution necessary to match image resolution the viewer will be able to discern if images appear better or worse than what they are used to. Calibrated monitors are, of course, the best way to go but they are not critical to making relative assessments.

Unedited RAW images downloaded from file storage and transfer services that do not compress an image file is something I believe to be more important. Downloading Zipped files is one of the worst ways I can imagine to obtain a photo file. Perhaps the second worse is obtaining image files from forums like this and others. These sites beat the dickens out of an image file during the upload process, leaving anything downloaded considerably less than the original file.

I hear you. I always felt that if an image of video was downsampled that it would look better (cleaner/smoother) than trying to post at the original high image size.
Now by saying that I would like for the unedited raw image to be posted so I could then edit the image as I would normally edit my own images. I then could compare the resulting images with images I have previously edited from my own cameras.
Regards.
Mike

 

[Fred Garvin]

.....These sites beat the dickens out of an image file during the upload process, leaving anything downloaded considerably less than the original file.....

And is the #1 reason I am hesitant to post my work online.....Facebook is really bad about this. Every time I post an image I cringe at the result. (Which isn't often)

 

[rdonson]

I’d like to present a different “view” from Photo’s.

Images viewed on any screen are relative to what we are accustomed to seeing. Provided the view screen has the resolution necessary to match image resolution the viewer will be able to discern if images appear better or worse than what they are used to. Calibrated monitors are, of course, the best way to go but they are not critical to making relative assessments.

Unedited RAW images downloaded from file storage and transfer services that do not compress an image file is something I believe to be more important. Downloading Zipped files is one of the worst ways I can imagine to obtain a photo file. Perhaps the second worse is obtaining image files from forums like this and others. These sites beat the dickens out of an image file during the upload process, leaving anything downloaded considerably less than the original file.

I have 2 monitors calibrated with an X-Rite i1 Display Pro device. My iMac 27" has a max resolution of 5120 x 2880. Bring on the RAW photo files. I'll be happy to give them a look with Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Bridge/Photoshop or a few other RAW processing software apps I have.

Like others here I'm also very used to processing 24-36 MP RAW files and HD and 4K video. I'm primarily a photog though still learning my way through video.

 

[rdonson]

And is the #1 reason I am hesitant to post my work online.....Facebook is really bad about this. Every time I post an image I cringe at the result. (Which isn't often)

...and most people viewing photos and videos do not have calibrated monitors and the brightness on their monitors is typically VERY bright. Not a great way to evaluated photos or videos.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Unedited RAW images downloaded from file storage and transfer services that do not compress an image file is something I believe to be more important. Downloading Zipped files is one of the worst ways I can imagine to obtain a photo file.

In the same way that JPG files are not inherently horrible quality, if minimal compression setting are used... the same applies to ZIP/RAR files. If no compression is chosen when setting parameters, zipping a series of photo files (in any format) will do nothing other than provide a single container for several separate files. And, as you mentioned the transfer service should not further modify the zip file.

 

[8terhoekdroneing]

Haha, obviously he didn't take a picture of the H3 with itself... Unless he has two, lol. ? Does it have HDR? ?

No HDR only WDR and AEB (Auto Exposure Bracketing), Same like DJI

 

[rdonson]

Warning: geek perspective

There are many compression techniques where no data is lost.

JPG files are 8 bit. If you're shooting RAW (DNG) then you typically have 12-14 bit sensor data. JPG aren't inherently horrible but I'm not a fan of throwing away that much data from the sensor. This is done in the camera using the camera's programming to create the JPG.

With a JPG someone else is determining what your photo will look like. I prefer to control that myself after the RAW file goes though demosiacing.

Yes, you can process a JPG in a number of apps to improve the look but within the constraints on the amount of data that you have available to play with. This typically means less shadow and highlight details.

YMMV

 

[PatR]

And is the #1 reason I am hesitant to post my work online.....Facebook is really bad about this. Every time I post an image I cringe at the result. (Which isn't often)

Fred,

From what I’ve seen of your work it doesn’t matter what a site does to the image. They still stand head and shoulders above most. You do exemplary work.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment!

 

[7cyclops]

Wow! Nice!