I downloaded and read it. I really don't think that he knows what he is
talking about. Here is why.
He says that it is more difficult to get an accurate exposure with
digital than film. That is not true. Accurate exposure is a product of
the camera's metering system and the photographer. People who are
sloppy with their exposure technique with color negative film and who
depend on a processor to clean up their exposure will need to polish
their skills just as they would if they switched to color slide film.
What you have with a digital camera is a histogram that tells you
exactly how you exposed the image and allows you make a correction if
needed. It is seldom needed because modern multizone exposure meters
are spot on in most cases.
Raw vs. jpeg: (1)here is another area where he is just wrong if best
quality is a goal. If your exposure is not exactly spot on you can
adjust it in a raw image because it usually has 12 bit depth instead of
8 without the risk of serious damage to the image. You can test this
yourself and can see the difference easily in the histograms and
sometimes in the image(look for zones with harsh transitions in the sky
for instance).
(2) All digital cameras have default settings in jpeg for sharpening,
color, contrast that may not agree with your perception of the scene.
Reality is that the processor in a camera is tiny and they take short
cuts. Doing the adjustments on a raw image gives you the advantage of a
processor and software that is not limited by the size and power
requirements of being stuffed inside a camera. Sharpening out of
Photoshop and detail is so much better than the jpeg that comes out of
the camera.
(3) Raw is not hard. It takes a few seconds longer than a jpeg to open.
Other than converting it to 8 bit before saving the processing is not
much different.
(4) I think if you just want to download directly to one of those new
PictBridge printers, jpeg is your best bet.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Apr 7, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Tris Schuler wrote:
>
> I found this PDF from an article on the Fuji site. I'm pulled both
> ways by
> some of what's written, especially the writer's disdain for shooting
> RAW
> and then working with his files later (is time really that important in
> most cases?), but there's food for thought either way--probably a
> worthwhile read for anyone (thinking about) jumping into digital.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3a2q8
>
> Tris
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|