>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.
That seems to make sense and follows my train of thought in general with re
to any approach to photography.
>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).
Well, a photography is after _useable_ quality. Pros at an event on a
strict deadline might well find themselves in a crunch where processing RAW
files after the fact represents an impossible hurdle. Something to think
about, especially if that JPEG work will only itself be corrupted to one
extent or another on the other end of production (e.g. newspapers).
>(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.
In theory this is true, but again, with pros on deadline this argument for
"quality" could be moot.
>(4) I think if you just want to download directly to one of those new
>PictBridge printers, jpeg is your best bet.
For what I want out of photography RAW is the only way to go in most
situations, though my wife does perfectly acceptable work for _her_ site's
needs using small JPEG files. Just depends (again) on how "useable quality"
is defined by the individual.
Frankly, part of me wishes I had a need for digital now. If I did I might
pop for the Canon MkII. (Were someone else paying the freight. Couldn't
afford it myself.)
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"
|