I agree, in part.
The raw are more flexible/ richer in information than the JPEGS - when you do a
lot of fiddling with your pixes as I do, JPEG is hopeless - even the presumably
excellent fujis are - compared to the range of editing offered by raw files.
Just shoot a snap that is at the limit of the sensor range and compare the
corrections available from JPEGs and from RAW - trying is believing :-)
Maybe even more telling, try the adjustments of the WB with mixed lighting in
JPEGs and in RAW ...
Hope this helps.
Amities
Philippe
Le 4 août 2014 à 23:07, Mike Lazzari <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>> What I'd like is to see a jpg straight from a RAW file, .....
> Brian, There is no such thing or I should say that's what is done in-camera
> anyway. Your jpg's are raw files processed as per your settings in the camera
> menus. What you need for a comparison is a raw file, orf in this case, to
> process before converting to a jpg. There are free raw converters and
> Faststone will open orf files just fine. I'm not sure how effective it is
> though since I use PS or LR when going to the orf file.
>
> I suggest that you just set the camera to save RAW + LF jpg and give it a
> try. It's only electrons. Personaly I find a Large-Fine jpg to be perfectly
> acceptable for most things and since I also save an orf I can always go back
> and change things. Storage is cheap.
>
> Mike
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|