Except that there is no custom development option that could exercise
even a fraction of the control allowed by processing raw files in a raw
converter.
ps: I think I've asked it here before but I continuously wonder why
nearly everyone (but me) writes raw as RAW... as though it's an acronym
or file type abbreviation. It's neither, just an adjective.
Chuck Norcutt
Philippe Amard wrote:
> In short :
> Shooting RAW is more or less like developing the film the way you want
> it to be.
> Shooting JPEG is asking the first lab or shop round the corner to
> process it for you.
>
> No printing involved here.
> Ph
>
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Joel's statement about not needing to shoot raw when you have a live
>> histogram is correct... but only if your intent is to replicate shooting
>> slide film. There are dozens of controls on ACR's conversion screens
>> and exposure is but one of them. When processing raw files (basically
>> everything I shoot) I probably deliberately set no less than 1/2 dozen
>> controls and for some as many as a dozen or more.
>>
>> Perhaps this points to the source of the sometimes quite divergent views
>> on shooting raw. Not shooting raw and not having extensive control over
>> the development process would be quite constraining for me.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> Ken Norton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> There is no need to shoot RAW in such a case if exposure
>>>> is the primary reason for doing so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Funny how some of us can manage to shoot slide film and get the exposure
>>> right, but the moment we pick up a digital camera--gotta shoot RAW because
>>> we can't meter to save our skin.
>>>
>>> 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/
|