In answer to question one, I've compared in-camera processed jpegs to what I can generate with a RAW file, and there really is no comparison. The results from carefully processed RAW are far superior. In regard to question two, I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax Photolab can come close to what in-camera processing gives me. I don't want any of either. If all digital could give me were the camera-processed jpegs, I'd still be shooting film. Paul
> 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 > > > > > > > > >
