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
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

Reply via email to