RAW processing goes quite quickly once you've had some practice. I'm not familiar with all the converters, but with PSCS, you can set your default converter settings. So when you first open the RAW file, it's already close. Unless I'm working with difficult situations or bad exposures, RAW conversion takes only a minute or two. Since I don't print every shot on a card, I don't convert every shot. But I do saw all the RAWS that are at least halfway decent. RAW conversion is really quite simple for the most part, and not very time conuming. Paul
> Godfery wrote: > > >There's a distinction between "image manipulation" and "image processing". > >Manipulating images has a negative connotation of changing things. I do > >only a little image manipulation, like compositing or cleaning up an > >unwanted element, etc. I spend most of my time in image processing: > >processing images to render as I previsualized them. That's a skill that I > >had to learn and keep on learning. The more I know about the tools used to > >render my photographs, the more I can get what I wanted. > > You're right, image processing is what I meant. > > The 'rendering of images as previsualized' is the issue I'm mulling over in > mind, and why I had the question regarding being able to create a .tif out > of camera from the RAW, using the same algorithm the camera uses. I may not > be making any sense, and I haven't worked with RAW long enough to ask the > question intelligently (or maybe when I know more the question is mute). > I'm usually fairly happy with the results the camera delivers as a .tif, and > usually only make very minor adjustments. My question stems from the fact > that I doubt my ability to 'revisualize' the scene as I saw it, days, weeks, > months later. I was thinking that if I had a .tif to compare to the RAW > file, I would have some kind of reference point. > > I suspect you'll tell me that in both cases the camera/software will not > necessarially see or render the scene as I saw it, so there is, in reality > not a reference point at all. :) And that the only real difference is where > I'm starting from. A .tif file that has pre-processing vs. a RAW with less > pre-processing. > > So two questions to the masses shooting RAW. Aside from using a RAW > converter, do you find it that much more laborious to work with RAW as > opposed to .tif (I almost never ever shoot .jpg BTW)? And how often do you > find that the RAW capture is satisfactory on it's own, applying only minor > adjustments and sharpening? > > Tom C. > >
