On 13 Mar 2005 at 18:31, Tom C wrote: > 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?
It doesn't take long one you are familiar dealing with RAW files and you have an appropriately capable machine. I have a bunch of early shots that I made as JPG due to media and processing speed constraints and now I wish I'd found a way to have shot many of the images as RAW now that I have access to a good printer. It's easy to do some simple experiments to display the differences between in- camera processing and RAW post processing. If you shoot a scene with a lot of shadow detail and one point light source in the frame without any compensation you will likely get an image exposed so as not to reveal very much if any shadow detail. So if you have some spare time shoot this scene like this as a TIFF and RAW file with all other settings remaining the same (set the camera to low contrast just to give the in-camera processing a fair go). Post process the TIFF to reveal the shadow detail whilst preserving the highlights and then do the same thing with the RAW version. I'll give you one guess which method will produce the most printable image :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
