On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, frankly, I'm going to have a hard time giving up Elements 9, now
that I've installed it.
Hoo, boy. Pretty nifty.
IIRC the newer versions of Elements have some of the tools the big
brother has, like curve tool
I haven't seen the curve tool, yet. But that's not to say it
isn't in there. But, I do like the organizer in it. I'm sure it's not
at the level of Lightroom, but it's certainly beyond anything Picasa has
to offer. It's going to take some getting used to, as there seems to be
a fairly
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:31 -0600, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com
wrote:
I figure I can do the bigger part of my DNG editing in Elements, and
then kick it over to 7 after I've converted it to .jpg format for any of
the more intricate work. I haven't tried bringing any of my old
Thanks for the reminder!
I'd forgotten all about that.
-- Walt
On 11/27/2010 2:56 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Why convert to jpg in Elements if you're going to do further editing in
PS7? Every time you save a jpg you're throwing away data. I'd suggest
saving in a lossless format (tif or
Tim Bray wrote:
Up till now, with my K20, I've still been shooting in PEF because
they're the same bits and the files are smaller. What am I missing?
A huge potential advantage of DNG that no one's mentioned yet (I think
- I haven't followed this long thread scrupulously) is that every DNG
file
Larry Colen wrote:
On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:04 AM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
You can sing raw files to the tune of Rawhide. ;-).
I'm currently trapped in a hotel in Lawrence, KS awaiting a wedding so it's
getting kind of weird.
Mark!
Steve Desjardins is the Hunter S. Thompson of the
From: Tim Bray
Up till now, with my K20, I've still been shooting in PEF because
they're the same bits and the files are smaller. What am I missing?
-T
Probably not a thing.
The advantage comes from shooting in raw format. PEF is Pentax's raw
format, DNG is Adobe PhotoShop's raw format.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
K10D and later compress the .PEFs and don't compress .DNGs. So it
makes sense to capture in .PEF and convert to .DNG for processing.
And since i only have PS CS on the iBook, the DNG files are a god
send. But, LR2.7
2010/11/26 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
wrote:
K10D and later compress the .PEFs and don't compress .DNGs. So it
makes sense to capture in .PEF and convert to .DNG for processing.
And since i only have PS CS on
Thanks! Although, to my infinite consternation, I've discovered
there's no way to get Photoshop 7 to handle DNG files, and I can't
afford to plunk down the requisite cash for any of the more recent Adobo
releases. They're a tad spendy.
Picasa 3 will handle them, of course, but then I'm
The current version of Photoshop Elements will allow you to use the
latest version of Camera Raw, and has more capabilities than Photoshop
7. It's about $80-90.
There's no comparison to how much editing freedom you have when
editing raw files vs JPEGs, and with Photoshop Elements vs Picasa.
On
Hmm ... I'll check into that. I wonder if I might even be able to
find a slightly less-recent release of Elements that handles them.
Thanks for the info, Godfrey.
(I bet the Adobo release is even cheaper, still!)
-- Walt
On 11/26/2010 12:06 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The current
The latest version of Elements is available for around $50 until
the end of the month (special pricing from Adobe, reflected in the
price shown at a lot of on-line sellers).
Almost all earlier versions of Elements will probably support DNG;
until I upgraded to Elements 7 I was still using
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:01 -0600, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks! Although, to my infinite consternation, I've discovered
there's no way to get Photoshop 7 to handle DNG files, and I can't
afford to plunk down the requisite cash for any of the more recent Adobo
That sounds like a pretty fair work-around. I'll have to give it a try.
Thanks for the suggestion!
-- Walt
On 11/26/2010 1:33 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
convert in Pentax Photo Lab, save as a TIFF and do
further editing in PS7
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
OfficeMax seems to have the best price at $55. Amazon is $65 and
OfficeDepot is $75. All prices for Elements 9.
-p
On 11/26/2010 12:28 PM, John Francis wrote:
The latest version of Elements is available for around $50 until
the end of the month (special pricing from Adobe, reflected in the
I have Elements 2.0 that came with an old hard drive purchase.
Apparently support started at 3.
I may call around to a few local computer shops next week to see if
there might be a not-terribly-older release I can get on the cheap ...
say, 6 or 7. I've had fairly good luck with that sort
Thanks, Paul.
I'm going to scour the bargain bins a bit to see what I can come up
with. I'm seriously strapped at the moment -- still don't have a car
after mine burned! So, I'm even holding back a bit on buying that K1000
with the 50mm prime for $40 I found in a classified ad yesterday.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:10 -0600, Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com
wrote:
That sounds like a pretty fair work-around. I'll have to give it a
try.
Thanks for the suggestion!
The Pentax software does include some basic editing functions such as
white balance adjustment, exposure
Beware, I like Raw Therapee, but I was unable to get the last iteration
I downloaded to run on either my Win2K box or my WinXP laptop. It would
just die trying to read K20D PEF files, (didn't do so well with K20D DNG
files either). There was a long thread in their support forums about
the
I hadn't thought about looking into standalone converters. That may
be a good option.
Thanks for the ideas! I'll report back with any good findings. I'm a
freeware hound from way back. ;-)
-- Walt
On 11/26/2010 3:48 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Beware, I like Raw Therapee, but I was unable
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:48 -0500, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Beware, I like Raw Therapee, but I was unable to get the last iteration
I downloaded to run on either my Win2K box or my WinXP laptop. It would
just die trying to read K20D PEF files, (didn't do so well with K20D
From: Walter Gilbert
Thanks! Although, to my infinite consternation, I've discovered
there's no way to get Photoshop 7 to handle DNG files, and I can't
afford to plunk down the requisite cash for any of the more recent Adobo
releases. They're a tad spendy.
Picasa 3 will handle them, of
Looks like you're right, John:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00WXvS
Later in the thread
(http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00WXvS?start=10), though, they
mention that the converter is super crude -- whatever that means.
Idunno. I'm in the process of downloading a trial
Sorry but PS7 is not capable of being used with any version of ACR
that supports DNG. That thread says that although some of the comments
are easy to mistake as saying the opposite.
I don't use much other than Lr3 these days, but if you are seriously
strapped for cash, dcraw is free, open source
Well, frankly, I'm going to have a hard time giving up Elements 9,
now that I've installed it.
Hoo, boy. Pretty nifty.
On 11/26/2010 7:53 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Sorry but PS7 is not capable of being used with any version of ACR
that supports DNG. That thread says that although
I've gotten best results so far with a modified IVT (Intelligent
Voltage Technology) charger - the modification lowers temperature
control thresholds and a bunch of other parameters to improve cell
life.
HTH Ecke
2010/11/25 Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Brian
2010/11/25 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
And since Panasonic uses .RAW as their raw file extension, all .RAW files
are raw files, but not all raw files are .RAW files.
Which goes to show you all raw files are raw but some are more raw
than others...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Nov 25, 2010, at 12:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
The convention of using capitalized RAW for raw files is pretty
common, John. I don't see any reason to confuse people with all the
various file extension specifics.
Lighten up Godfrey.
The juxtaposition of raw,
You must be taking good stuff. ;-)
-Original Message-
From: John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:12:15
To: pdml@pdml.net
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: What's the advantage of DNG?
From: Eric Weir
So RAW
-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of DNG?
2010/11/25 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
And since Panasonic uses .RAW as their raw file extension, all .RAW files
are raw files, but not all raw files are .RAW files
.
-Original Message-
From: eckinator eckina...@gmail.com
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:32:53
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of DNG?
2010/11/25 John Sessoms jsessoms
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On Nov 25, 2010, at 12:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
The convention of using capitalized RAW for raw files is pretty
common, John. I don't see any reason to confuse people with all the
various file
In other words, people ask serious questions because they need to know
something and you'd rather confuse the issue with puns. So you can
make it personal.
Go on. I'll simply ignore you.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:58 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
On Wed,
2010/11/25 Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net:
Thanks, Brian. I just placed an order for an eight-pack of eneloops and a
LaCrosse Technologies BC 700 charger, which sounds like it'll help me get
more life out of the batteries.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
In other words, people ask serious questions because they need to know
something and you'd rather confuse the issue with puns. So you can
make it personal.
Go on. I'll simply ignore you.
Thank you. That's what you should have done in the first place.
--
PDML
On 11/25/2010 10:13 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Eric Weireew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On Nov 25, 2010, at 12:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
The convention of using capitalized RAW for raw files is pretty
common, John. I don't see any reason
Well, y'all finally shamed me into shooting in DNG. Up until now,
I've been shooting almost exclusively in JPG. The few raw shots I have
taken were throw-away shots I simply discarded out of hand. But,
tonight, I decided to check try out the DNG + JPG function while taking
shots of the
Enjoy!
Well, y'all finally shamed me into shooting in DNG. Up until now,
I've been
shooting almost exclusively in JPG. The few raw shots I have taken were
throw-away shots I simply discarded out of hand. But, tonight, I decided
to
check try out the DNG + JPG function while taking
Up till now, with my K20, I've still been shooting in PEF because
they're the same bits and the files are smaller. What am I missing?
-T
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
Enjoy!
Well, y'all finally shamed me into shooting in DNG. Up until now,
I've been
On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
Up till now, with my K20, I've still been shooting in PEF because
they're the same bits and the files are smaller. What am I missing?
-T
Nothing, except perhaps forward compatibility. For all practical purposes PEF
and DNG raw files are the
On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:04 AM, drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
You can sing raw files to the tune of Rawhide. ;-).
I'm currently trapped in a hotel in Lawrence, KS awaiting a wedding so it's
getting kind of weird.
Mark!
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML
On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:51 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
Up till now, with my K20, I've still been shooting in PEF because
they're the same bits and the files are smaller. What am I missing?
-T
Nothing, except perhaps forward compatibility. For
I believe it's the K-x where Pentax changed the shape of the battery
compartment so you couldn't use CR-V3 batteries. That should tell you
what they think of them.
--M.
On 24/11/2010, Brian Walters supera1...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:28 -0500, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
That's what I do with my K10D, but after converting to DNG I erase the
PEFs. The K10D shoots uncompressed DNG, but newer cams shoot the
compressed version, so I see no need for PEFs with them.
--M.
On 25/11/2010, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:51 PM, paul stenquist
K10D and later compress the .PEFs and don't compress .DNGs. So it
makes sense to capture in .PEF and convert to .DNG for processing.
BTW: if you do capture in-camera DNGs, you can run them through DNG
Converter to compress them and save a good bit of disk space.
--
Godfrey
K10D and later compress the .PEFs and don't compress .DNGs. So it
makes sense to capture in .PEF and convert to .DNG for processing.
K10D and K20D don't, but later cameras certainly do. K7 and K5 both do
compressed DNGs, not sure about Kx or Kr.
- Peter
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Nothing really. Some think the DNG is more likely to be suported in the
long run, but I wouldn't bet either way. I've got a bunch of stuff that
can't be accessed without special equipment. That I was assured would
always be supported. You pays your money and takes your choice.
On
On 11/24/2010 4:07 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
Thanks, Jeffrey. It's getting to the point where I need to stop
asking questions and just try it. That said, I really am a novice,
relying a lot on the immediate feedback that digital photography
provides to help me become a better photographer. If I'm
On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:36 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
Shooting RAW can only improve your photography in the long run. The in-camera
software that decides what your jpegs should look like is dumb -- it can't
see the picture. You have the advantage of eyes and a brain that is a much
better
On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Lightroom's standard calibration and camera profile defaults for raw
files are generally quite good (although usually different from the
in-camera JPEG rendering options) so there's little real difference
between doing the simple effort
On Nov 23, 2010, at 11:15 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
How many raw-formatted images on a 4Gb memory card?
186 on a 2 Gig card, using the Ds. Roughly double that...
Thanks, Peter.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Thanks, Godfrey. Especially for the reminder that I'll need to tell LR what
kind of camera I'm using.
You don't have to tell Lightroom that at all. The EXIF metadata in the
files includes that information.
--
Godfrey
On Nov 24, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
You don't have to tell Lightroom that at all. The EXIF metadata in the
files includes that information.
Great! Thanks!
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Eric, once you invested your money, digital is free. You can shoot as much as
you please and learn simply by trial and error. Given instant feedback your
learning curve may be relatively short.
Thanks, Boris. You forgot about batteries.
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Eric, once you invested your money, digital is free. You can shoot as much as
you please and learn simply by trial and error. Given instant feedback your
learning curve may be relatively short.
Thanks, Boris. You forgot about batteries.
You should invest in a good set of rechargeable NiHMs or buy disposable
Lithiums, .
When I was using the *ist-D and Ds exclusively I would wear out a
package of 12 of the rechargeable, recharging them about once a week, in
about a year and a half. They probably would have lasted longer if
On 11/24/10, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
You should invest in a good set of rechargeable NiHMs or buy disposable
Lithiums, .
I've been using the Energizer Lithiums in my DS2 for a couple of years
now. They last a long time, work better at cold temps than
rechargeables or
I keep a couple sets of NiMH -- Sanyo Eneloops and Energizers for my
K-x, and they both seem to hold up pretty well. But, if it's going to
be a situation where I know I'm going to need to take a LOT of photos,
but not sure how many, I get the Energizer Ultimate Lithiums if I feel
like I
Think of the planet, guys - disposables are evil...
Thanks
Ecke
2010/11/24 Walter Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com:
I keep a couple sets of NiMH -- Sanyo Eneloops and Energizers for my K-x,
and they both seem to hold up pretty well. But, if it's going to be a
situation where I know I'm going to
um, lithium disposables contain lots of very recyclable raw materials.
they should never been 'thrown out', they should be recycled.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:55 AM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote:
Think of the planet, guys - disposables are evil...
Thanks
Ecke
2010/11/24 Walter
2010/11/24 Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com:
um, lithium disposables contain lots of very recyclable raw materials.
they should never been 'thrown out', they should be recycled.
no doubt about that and I'm sure the members of this list love what
they shoot enough not to litter all over
On Nov 24, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
um, lithium disposables contain lots of very recyclable raw materials.
they should never been 'thrown out', they should be recycled.
Googling, I've come across rechargeable lithium ion CRV3s.
On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:57 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You should invest in a good set of rechargeable NiHMs or buy disposable
Lithiums, .
When I was using the *ist-D and Ds exclusively I would wear out a package of
12 of the rechargeable, recharging them about once a week, in about a year
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:19 -0500, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
um, lithium disposables contain lots of very recyclable raw materials.
they should never been 'thrown out', they should be recycled.
Googling, I've come across
On 11/24/2010 5:39 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:57 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You should invest in a good set of rechargeable NiHMs or buy disposable
Lithiums, .
When I was using the *ist-D and Ds exclusively I would wear out a package of 12
of the rechargeable, recharging them
On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
I can't find the reference off hand, but I recall that Pentax
recommended against using the rechargeable CR-3Vs in the *ist DS due to
them having a higher voltage than the non-rechargeables. I'm not sure
if the same caution applies to more
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:18 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Cost doesn't really matter that much, you can pay a lot for a crappy charger.
There was a whole discussion of the best model charger you could buy a few
years ago, Pre-K10D when all Pentax DSLRs used AA or CRV3 batteries. I'm not
sure if
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:39 -0500, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:57 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
You should invest in a good set of rechargeable NiHMs or buy disposable
Lithiums, .
When I was using the *ist-D and Ds exclusively I would wear out a package
On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:43 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
I know you've gotten lots of feedback on this but I'll chime in anyway. Take
a look at this tutorial on using an import preset in Lightroom 3.
http://vimeo.com/12404424
Thanks, Paul. Will do.
I have created a preset based on his
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:28 -0500, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
I can't find the reference off hand, but I recall that Pentax
recommended against using the rechargeable CR-3Vs in the *ist DS due to
them having a higher voltage
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
I don't think you can go wrong with good quality NiMH rechargeables.
I'm not as heavy a shooter as many others (about 9000 images in two
years with the K200D) and I find I'm rarely charging my Eneloops more
often than once every 4-6 weeks
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/24 Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com:
um, lithium disposables contain lots of very recyclable raw materials.
they should never been 'thrown out', they should be recycled.
no doubt about that and I'm sure the
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
I found one reference to Pentax recommending against them in the DS -
it's towards the end of this page:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/pentax/ist-ds-slr/pentax-ist-ds-slr-review-4.html
Thanks, Brian. I just placed an order
From: Eric Weir
So RAW and DGN are the same thing?
Not quite.
.DNG is one raw format, .PEF is another. Pentax DSLRs can save raw files
in either format. All .PEF files are raw files, all .DNG files are raw
files, but not all raw files are .PEF or .DNG files.
And since Panasonic uses .RAW
From: Eric Weir
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
I would switch to RAW even with non-existent processing skills.
The RAW conversion process isn't really difficult, and your
results will probably be better. I don't like the camera doing
any sharpening, color balance, etc.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:12 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
So RAW and DGN are the same thing?
Not quite.
.DNG is one raw format, .PEF is another. Pentax DSLRs can save raw files in
either format. All .PEF files are raw files, all .DNG files are raw files,
but not all raw
From: drdx...@gmail.com
I think Tanya coined the name Starkist for the *ist D. I'm trying
to finally make the switch to DNG. I'm also planning on getting
LR3, the combination of which should keep me from doing any serious
work for at least a month.
The original *ist-D doesn't offer .DNG
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:12 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
So RAW and DGN are the same thing?
Not quite.
.DNG is one raw format, .PEF is another. Pentax DSLRs can save raw files in
either format. All .PEF files are raw files, all .DNG files are raw
On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Regarding converting to DNG, I will now expose my naiveté by [1] admitting
that, again for the time-being, I am shooting jpeg, [2] asking what's the
advantage of DNG
The file extension is .DNG, not DGN.
The Adobe Digital Negative standard is documented here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/?promoid=DTEHA
A DNG file is indeed a native raw file written to a publicly disclosed
standard. There are many advantages to the Digital Negative standard,
most of which
PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Regarding converting to DNG, I will now expose my naiveté by [1] admitting
that, again for the time-being, I am shooting jpeg, [2] asking what's the
advantage of DNG.
Think of it like having a print (jpg) versus a negative (DGN) to create a
print
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A DNG file is indeed a native raw file written to a publicly disclosed
standard. There are many advantages to the Digital Negative standard,
most of which are small in practical significance at the present time
but have a great deal of
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
As for DNG (Digital NeGatives) vs DGN please excuse my errors.
I have 3 children and 10 years of PTA, high school sports, Band, etc.
at Downers Grove North High School (DGN).
No matter how hard I try, DGN slips out instead of DNG.
I'm
the
advantage of DNG.
Think of it like having a print (jpg) versus a negative (DGN) to create a
print.
The jpg's are smaller files rendered from the original in camera digital
info.
The DGN's are bigger files and retain more detail that can be brought out in
software like Lightroom.
5
Another aspect that should be mentioned is that camera makers' RAW
formats are all proprietary across the board and altered from time to
time behind the scenes. Whenever a camera maker may at some point
choose to discontinue support for a certain version of their RAW
format or one of their given
I would switch to RAW even with non-existent processing skills. The RAW
conversion process isn't really difficult, and your results will probably be
better. I don't like the camera doing any sharpening, color balance, etc.
Jeffery
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
Given my
On Nov 23, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A DNG file is indeed a native raw file written to a publicly disclosed
standard. There are many advantages to the Digital Negative standard,
most of which are small in practical
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
I would switch to RAW even with non-existent processing skills. The RAW
conversion process isn't really difficult, and your results will probably be
better. I don't like the camera doing any sharpening, color balance, etc.
Thanks, Jeffery.
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
My strategy was to always shoot in raw format. When I first got my DSLR, I
just ran the raw files through a very basic raw conversion and concentrated
on getting the most out of the camera. I then picked up some basic processing
skills, and
2010/11/24 Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net:
How many raw-formatted images on a 4Gb memory card?
367 on 2GB for a 10 MP K10D so should be closer to 1000 on 4GB for a 6
MP starkist I reckon
Ecke
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
My strategy was to always shoot in raw format. When I first got my DSLR, I
just ran the raw files through a very basic raw conversion and concentrated
on getting the most out of the camera. I
On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
LR3 does an amazing job of raw processing.
So my interim solution -- till I get to where I can begin to do the processing
-- could be to let LR3 do the processing instead of relying on the camera to do
it?
Keep in mind most of my images are
I'm pretty sure that on the K-7, a 16 gb card holds about 650.
Jeffery
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:00 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
I would switch to RAW even with non-existent processing skills. The RAW
conversion process isn't really difficult, and
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:31 -0500, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A DNG file is indeed a native raw file written to a publicly disclosed
standard. There are many advantages to the Digital Negative standard,
most of which are
On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, eckinator wrote:
367 on 2GB for a 10 MP K10D so should be closer to 1000 on 4GB for a 6
MP starkist I reckon
Wow. Nowhere near what I thought it would be. I imagined in the neighborhood of
what you'd get from a roll of film
Had to think about that 6 MP starkist.
On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
I'm pretty sure that on the K-7, a 16 gb card holds about 650.
Thanks, Jeffery. As eck pointed out, I'd get more with my 6 MP *ist DS. Still,
even that's a lot more than I imagined.
RAW processing isn't really scary. It just uses files that have not been
modified by in-camera processing/tweaking. The only thing that is really
noticeably off is color balance, but the RAW processing software usually has
the choices that the camera would (auto, tungsten, daylight, shade,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
How many raw-formatted images on a 4Gb memory card?
On my DS2, I get 188 raw images per 2GB card.
So I'll go out on a limb, and say 376 images on a 4GB.
-Mat
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:27:22
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Listpdml@pdml.net
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What's the advantage of DNG?
On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, eckinator wrote:
367 on 2GB for a 10 MP K10D so should be closer to 1000
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
