Hi Dario, On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:59:07 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
>I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as >the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on >outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to >justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. Then don't use the Pentax RAW converter. Don't blame the format, blame the tool! >Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance >poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for >smaller prints)? Yes, it does for me. I found I can get very acceptable images from RAW images within a range of 1 stop UNDER-exposure to about half a stop OVER-exposure. When shooting JPG (or TIFF) that margin is much smaller ... >Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also >allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the >same) can you explain your thoughts on this? Yes, I use the Photoshop-CS RAW converter which is really superb. The only disadvantage is that it is expensive (about US$ 700 I think) I am using one 512Mb and two 1Gb cards with the *ISTD at the moment, which gives me a total of about 175 RAW images. This almost always enough for 1 day shooting, after which I transfer the images to a laptop. If I need more, I can always switch to JPG ... Regards, JvW ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
