I suppose Ansel Adams sent his negatives back to Kodak to have prints
made. I'm quite sure they were "perfect" out of the camera. No doubt it
was a ghost writer that wrote "The Print". Certainly he would have had
no need for "post-processing".
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/3/2014 10:36 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
3. If the internally produced JPEG file is good enough, what reason is
there to burden oneself with the hassles of RAW? The latest round of
cameras have really, really good conversion engines built in. We're
not dealing with Canon 20D JPEGs anymore.
4. If all you are doing is a straight conversion without performing
heroics to "save the image", generally speaking, there will be little
gain between shooting RAW and JPEG.
5.If you have the ability to "get it right" in-camera with proper
white-balance, exposure and contrast and the output file quality
(sharpness, resolution, etc.) is satisfactory, then adding the RAW
workflow is a time waster.
6. "Highlight Recovery" is a red herring. It is something needed in
only a tiny fraction of images. Frankly, if that is a person's #1
concern, then I think that that person needs to learn what really is
important in a photograph. No amount of highlight recovery is going to
save an image that otherwise is a tosser.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|