Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On May 18, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > >> The problem is that Ann wants to open RAW format under Windows 98 and, > >> as far as I know, Elements 3 requires Windows 2000 or XP. > > > > YIkes - yeah thats true. > > I don't know a lot about Windows. Is it impossible to simply upgrade to > Windows XP?
In a word, yes... in my circumstance Just so you know, I'm not a total techo idiot re computers - I have worked with them since 1960... and while it isnt "impossible" to upgrade it would be really dangerous and way beyond what I could deal with on an emotional level. > G writes: > > If you have the camera's image processing parameters set correctly for > the scene you are trying to capture, if the scene's dynamics will > translate well to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] RGB JPEG rendering, if you get the > exposure pretty close to correct, if the image does not need extensive > post-processing, and if the camera's JPEG rendering is clean enough > (free of JPEG artifacts), then a JPEG file produced in camera should be > just as good as what you produce with a RAW format exposure and post > processing for most purposes. THAT is exactly what i wanted to hear... thanks! you are forgiven for your notebook comment(below) now :) > > That makes it sound harder than it is, yes. No - it makes it much easier - I'd say three-quarters of > the photos I see could be captured with JPEG rendering just fine. The > problem is that, for me anyway, the remaining one-quarter are usually > the photos *I* want to take. 8^| > > > so much about the digital stuff I'm ignorant of - > > and already forgetting stuff I've learned. > > My advice: > - Bolster your memory by keeping a notebook. I WILL kill you :) Geez. I NEVER would have thought of that! > - Stop thinking of it as "the digital stuff" and think of it simply as > photography. > It isn't, though... going from shooting manual when all you have to think about is f stops and aperatures on the tech side is a huge leap. Don't get me wrong, I'm loving many things about the digcam or I wouldn't have gotten myself into deeper debt buying the thing - but the wrinkle comes when I want to shoot for someone else, not for myself - to generate income to justify the expense. > It's not a burden, not any more than learning new techniques for > handling and rendering film images anyway. It is different, that's all: Right. thats the problem. > new material to work with, understand, and learn how to use to best > advantage. Accept that learning photography is a process of constant > learning new things. > > Godfrey Ok now tell me how old you are :) I don't have the memory I did when I was in my 20's - I'm pushing 70 - I spend half my day trying to recall things and staring at something and not seeing it. Its pretty depressing. There has been a huge super fast leap from film stuff to digi stuff in a very small period of time. The leap is not quite as large for those who started shooting with all sorts of programable film cameras than we who shot first with a manual slr. The frustration I feel is not about "photography" it's about electronics and mechanics and math, not being able to see the controls on the camera because someone things its nice tohave every thing in black...etc... But there is much I already love about the camera - I jsut can't stand how much I have to learn to get to the point where it is second nature. annsan venting
