I cant say I have notices RAW being any slower on the *istD than JPG to be honest. The ist CAN zoom on RAW files (I am sure it can - will check later just in case), and while the software ist fantastic it is a lot easier than doing the adjustments in PS. It IS slow to convert to jpg after the changes though, but still waaay faster than trying to do the changes in PS (and with better results too).
File size IS a problem - or would be if I had to pay full price for memory. Its wonderful being able to borrow the memory from work! Using the histogram and adjusting when necessary is fine if you are able to recreate a shot, or the lighting and contrast range of the shot doesn't vary at all between shots, but often neither of these is the case. Each to their own, I guess. I will mix & match the two but if and when I get serious about a particular shoot, it will be RAW every time. BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics for this test - it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure in the RAW software actually made the noise a lot better too, something that again the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 October 2003 01:26 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > > > On 15 Oct 2003 at 0:59, Rob Brigham wrote: > > > Seeing the full size files, this is clear cut for me. Jpg is not a > > problem from a compression point of view, but creating the > jpgs from > > the camera is throwing away some of the information from the image > > capture which can never be recovered. If you have any > small exposure > > error then RAW will probablybe able to correct that for > you, but jpg > > will not. > > I came to very similar conclusions when I first ventured into > digital image > capture. This is precisely why I regularly check my > historgams when shots are > critical. Not only can you determine the optimum exposure you > can also match > the cameras contrast control to the scene. For instance why > flat line at the > top and bottom of the histogram when a high contrast setting > will provide a > broader histogram with obviously greater delineation across > the light range of > the scene. > > Shooting RAW has more drawbacks than positive attributes for > me. Saving is > slow, file size is huge, I can't zoom the RAW image on review > in the camera, my > RAW import utility is poor and even the better third party > s/w is pretty slow. > I spent some time learning how to optimise capture and I > save in-camera in > jpeg, I'm most often very pleased with the results. I'm still > keen to have some > time with the *ist D to see if the RAW processing stream has > improved any. > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/> ~distudio/publications/ > Pentax > user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
