Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:23:53 -0500
In article <87k5nczyhc.fld@xxxxxxxxxx>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Keith) wrote:
Even better use Lightroom or Aperture and you work non-destructively
directly on the RAW image, with no jpeg or tiff duplicates clogging up
your storage.
You aren't working "directly on the RAW image". It
*does* convert it to an image format (almost certainly
not JPEG, but it might well be a TIFF variant) before
editing. Whether you save that image or not is perhaps
a reasonable option, but others might well do whatever
it is that you don't, and both are reasonable.
yes, you *are* working on the raw image. there is no intermediate file
format. all adjustments operate on the original raw data. period.
it's converted to rgb for display on a monitor or printed, but that's
going to happen with any format, jpeg included. images can also be
exported in one of several file formats, as a web gallery, a slide
show, or printed.
however, the real gain is not what it does internally, but rather how
it dramatically improves workflow. lightroom (and aperture) do pretty
much everything that needs to be done to most images. images that need
additional tweaks (such as extensive retouching or compositing) can
round-trip to photoshop or another external editor. it also provides
for easy searching based on keywords or metadata (e.g. all images taken
with a particular lens or a particular shutter speed).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Floyd L . Davidson
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- References:
- RAW VS JPEG
- From: nick
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Ali
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Keith
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- RAW VS JPEG
- Prev by Date: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Next by Date: Re: Digital Photo Frame info...
- Previous by thread: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Next by thread: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
