Subject: | Re: [OM] The virtues of RAW |
---|---|
From: | Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:42:00 -0500 |
> I did, I did. I wasn’t reading carefully enough . . . >> You missed the tongue-in-cheek. He did indeed carry out a lot of dodging >> and burning... AKA post-processing. Post-processing is NOT the same as raw conversion vs JPEG. If a person is doing serious bit-bending, then yes, it does make sense to start out with as many bits as possible. But let's be honest with ourselves and admit that rarely do we ever bend them enough to make them squeal in pain. -- Ken Norton ken@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.zone-10.com -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] ***SPAM*** Re: The virtues of RAW (was:, Divertimento), Charles Geilfuss |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] ***SPAM*** Re: The virtues of RAW (was:, Divertimento), Bob Whitmire |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] The virtues of RAW, Chris Barker |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] The virtues of RAW, Chuck Norcutt |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |