Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: Espen Stranger Seland <ess@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:27:42 +0200
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:01:48 +1000, "Pete D" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dtype, as an addendum to your comments: I've shot shot slide film for
years -- literally, as you know, what you shot is what you got --- and RAW
gives me the same type of results and feedback that slide film did. It
allows me to tell the story I want to communicate with my photographs
which is the bottom line of "writing with light".
What utter rubbish, surely the reverse is true, surely RAW gives you maximum
opportunity to change everything afterwards?
I agree. RAW is more like a negative, where you can do everything you
want in the printing process, and jpeg more like slide film (though,
of course you can do editing with jpegs as well).
If you have the settings right in jpeg mode surely that will take less
effort to get to the final product?
Especially for "native" raw-converters, like Nikon Capture that reads
all the metadata and displays is that way (color space, sharpening,
cruve etc). Other third party converters don't read them (but white
balance).
-espen
--
http://www.seland.org/
.
- References:
- Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: dtype
- Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: Mike Rooney
- Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- From: Pete D
- Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Prev by Date: Suggestions for Nikon D200 kit??
- Next by Date: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Previous by thread: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Next by thread: Re: Why many settings arguments don't matter with RAW
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
