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
> 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
> Those pics are very nice, Jan :-)
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.
Gimp-user mailing list