This is just ridiculous. You should go back to film if you are not prepared to
have an adequately sized computer for 2014 requirements.
I have an image with proof, from my very first month of shooting digitial, 10
years ago:
http://www.frozenlight.eu/nathanfoto/paw/2004/2004_31alt1.jpg
This is with a Canon 10D, my first digital camera. Due to lack of knowledge,
and for “convenience”, I was shooting JPG.
After posting this among my PAWs for week 31 in 2004, I decided (based on some
suggestions) that it would be better in B&W. But when I went to convert it,
ugly artifacts appeared. No matter what I did, I just could not get a decent
B&W conversion. I was using Photoshop at the time (don’t remember the version,
but it was the current one at the time). I finally gave up on the B&W but since
that experience, I have never bothered shooting JPG. RAW only for me.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator
YNWA
On 31 Jul 2014, at 22:26, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> My computer gets clogged by
> RAW images; they slow up several important programs.
> I have yet to see
> an image that I can recall where the use of RAW files has saved the day
> - with proof. So why bother?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
