Joe Tainter wrote: > Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the Pentax RAW converter. Perhaps my eyesight is poor. I do not have problems with it. In fact, I like very much being able quickly to adjust an images' color temperature by experimenting with the white balance settings.
That's a good reason, provided that other qualities are good. Unfortunately, when it comes to subject's outlines, roofs, and the like (any line other than perfectly horizontal/vertical) the Pentax Photo Lab gives poorer (less natural) details than in-camera processing. Same result with the Photoshop plugin. I cannot understand the reason for that, but this is the way things are. See my test enlargements at the bottom of this page: http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p7e.htm > Beyond that, my reasoning for not using jpeg is: Why ever would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better photographer, then shoot at anything less than the highest resolution? It feels like using cheap film. That's good theory. Unfortunately, the damn Pentax RAW converter doesn't work properly. > If not RAW, I would be shooting TIFF, which produces even larger files. > > Also, Alejandro suggested a portable PC with various appurtenances. I've already decided against that. I am already too burdened with stuff when I travel. My office provides me with laptops. Over the past six years I have had two of them. I have taken them on two trips out of several dozen. > > Eventually I will probably get an image tank of some kind. I shoot highest quality jpeg on a 512MB and a 256MB CF card and I get what I believe to be the best possible combination of quality and storage capability. Dario
