Rob walked me through my first few RAW conversions and the result was much better than anything I had previously attained working from TIFF files. I understand the time concern, I have the same problem. My quest here is to see what quality I'm able to achieve from digital as compared to film. Unlike many here I still shoot film far more often than not when I want to be confident of getting good results. It's an 'old dog, new tricks' sort of thing. For simple shots at a party or event I shoot JPEGs, they are quite good enough sometimes. For things that really count the fact is I know film better, so I use it. If I can settle into a digital workflow that is consistent AND efficient I will probably stop shooting film. Except, of course, for fun. As it is now digital takes me WAY too long for the results I get.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Best all around RAW converter/manager(s)?? > > > 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 > >
