John Allsopp wrote: > Jan Tomasek wrote: > >> Shooting in RAW is just same as into JPEG on Nikon, saving to memory >> card is done in background, but because of bigger size of file camera's >> buffer is able to hold only 2-3 images and after that you have to wait. >> > > Just to clarify that: the similarity is in the file saving, otherwise > saving to RAW still saves more info, right? > RAWs have more bytes per pixel, no WB is applied, nor sharpening or excessive noise reduction. PC RAW->image algorithm is much more complicated and quality than the one from any camera. You camn easily apply some exposure compensation after shooting... This list can be prolongated.
> It's just, I haven't got Gimp to do RAW yet (but I will, now you've > pointed out the plugin below). I won't bother if there's no difference > in the file quality. > > >> Gimp have limitation on 8bit per color channel, that is shame because >> cameras are usualy producing 12bit. Other software like Adobe >> Photohoshop is able to work in 16bit, but that adds another expences to >> your hobby. >> > > I'm sure I read there is a professional version of The Gimp which > provides more bits. I don't know how that compares price-wise with > Photoshop. > > Those pics are very nice, Jan :-) > > Cheers > UFRaw (ufraw.sf.net) handles RAWs with no posterization (it has more than 8 bits internally). Upcoming GIMP 2.4 has only 8 bits, 2.6 is planned to have 16 or even more. -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
