Re: [OM] The virtues of RAW

[Chuck Norcutt]

I loved the image no matter if raw or not.  :-)

Chuck Norcutt

On 8/1/2014 1:01 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> 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/