Do you make this stuff up for the fun of it? Can you name a raw
converter that works in 8 bit mode?
And you of all people. Clearly a zone system guy and presumably a
student of Ansel Adams. Despite great exposures due to the zone system
Adams' negatives were just the starting point. The real image was made
in the darkroom doing things that film engineers couldn't do for him.
Were he still around I'll bet he'd be ecstatic to have a raw converter
to play with. Sheesh!
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
>> Agreed. I'm very tempted to elaborate on this but I think I'd better back
>> off.... Maybe old silver nose can stick his neck out and do that... :)
>
>
>
> Yes, I know I'm going to get slapped around for my comment. Yet, I don't
> understand this thinking that we can't get it right "in camera" and we have
> to post-process everything. The defense is usually something along the
> lines of "I'm smarter than the engineering teams that spent years perfecting
> the technology". But this isn't anything new--we've been doing stupid
> things like over-exposing and under developing B&W films for years because
> Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and Agfa engineers are all idiots.
>
> A case in point is converting raw files to 16-bit and then having to
> reconvert to 8-bit when all you're doing is minor contrast, WB and
> saturation adjustment in an editor. It makes no sense because if the raw
> converter allows you to do these things during the conversion process, it is
> doing so in 16-bit mode already and only writing the final processed file in
> 8-bit. If your converter is processing in 8-bit, then you need a better raw
> converter.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|