All this makes me wonder several things...
1. How often is it that *I* will be able to come up with a better image than the in-camera software would generate?
2. How will I ever know that the camera might have done better, if I shoot in RAW and therefore never will have seen the TIFF file the camera would have produced (unless I take the time to do two indentical exposures back to back in both RAW and TIFF)?
3. Do I have the time to learn how to adjust all the parameters, especially ones that I have a marginal understanding of, CA for example?
4. Would I be better off improving my photography skills vs. my image manipulation skills?
I understand why RAW has benefits... but in some respects as pointed out, it's akin to working with a negative. As a mainly transparency shooter, it seems that the TIFF file is more analogous with a transparency. I can adjust TIFFS or I can scan a transparency and adjust it. Granted, not with the same latitude as a negative or a RAW image.
Not making a case against RAW, just trying to understand the trade offs... time being a major factor.
Tom C.
True, you may notice the difference in print at huge sizes or in shots made
under marginal conditions but really any shots that might benefit from the use
of CS or C1 RAW over PhotoLab need to be dealt with on a per image basis
anyhow. For instance if wish to correct for CA it varies per lens and with
focal distance and aperture and zoom setting. Again for critical noise
adjustment it varies with ISO and exposure period.
Rob Studdert
