[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/17/2006 9:38:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The jpeg is as good as I could get it. The white lids with hot sun on > them were solid gone, but the shadow detail was full retrievable with > the RAW. With the jpeg it took a lot of bodging and it stinks. But the > level of detail in the RAW amazed me. That instantly sold me back onto RAW. > > Of course, there's no way my inkjet can cope with showing that detail, > but that's another story. > > Some facts: jpeg file on card 5MB, RAW is 8 MB. I'm down from 300-odd > jpegs per 2 GB card to 187 at 200 ISO. Time for some more cards :-( > > And time to pull Bruce's book off the shelf and have another go.
Sorry... Bruce? > ========= > Cotty, YOU HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!! > > Hehehehehehehe. For shadow detail alone I decided to use RAW. Soon after I > realized there was also much more than that. > > Hallelujah. Praise the pixels. The boy has seen the light. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) I'm an absolute freak about shadow detail, so perhaps I've seen the light too! But! SO many questions come up! Is there a small book called RAW for dummies? So much about digital photography has transmogrified me from a pretty knowledgeable film photographer, who was at home in the darkroom and behind the shutter, to a mouth-hanging-open boob. At least it feels that way. I have a very fine 8 MP digital and it's chip is noise free for all of what MY needs are. I *love* the biggest jpegs I can get from it. Still, I saw Cotty's comparison, shot at 1/30 second, and I'm impressed! RAW wins hands down. No question, I have a passel of reading to do! keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
