Hi Shel,
It's a brave new world, eh?
I ordered a copy of "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS" a couple of days ago, so it's on it's way.
There's two questions I have for those out there that have worked with RAW for a while:
1. How do you know that your RAW workflow, assuming one's being used, consistently produces better results than the in-camera processing would have produced?
2. I haven't messed much with Pentax Photolab... it seems that a piece of out-of-camera software should be able to reproduce exactly the same image the in-camera software would have produced, if a .TIF or .JPG were specified when shooting as oppsed to RAW. Especially given they're from the same manufacturer. Is there software that can automatically dupe what the in-camera processing would have produced, so that a side-by-side comparison can be done between in-camera presets and defaults vs. my own RAW manipulation?
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Best all around RAW converter/manager(s)?? Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:52:33 -0800
Hi Tom,
Hey, it's only been a week since I've even used a dslr, and just a few days playing with RAW files, so don't count me as any sort of guru. What I bring to the table is skepticism based on years of shooting film (B&W film a that), a couple of years of fiddling with TIFF and JPEG files, less than a year of serious scanning and working in PS. I also bring a set of fresh experiences. I'd say that at this point: if you are satisfied with TIFF and JPEG, then by all means stick with using them. However there are advantages in working with 16 bit files and seemingly so in RAW as well. Do what you're comfortable with, and when you have time, learn the more advanced techniques. At one time or another the knowledge you get from working in these formats will help you in all areas of your photography.
You're best off improving all your skills. Your photographs can improve just by knowing what you can do with the pics once you've snapped the shutter. Actaully, you're best of knowing that before you even put your eye to the viewfinder. The more you know the better your results.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Date: 3/12/2005 4:32:24 PM
> 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
>
