I rarely treat two images exactly the same, so plug-ins wold be of little use for me. In truth, the RAW converters adjustments are far more fine and subtle than those of PS. I frequently change saturation by minute amounts in either direction, ditto white balance and color balance. The RAW converter allows extremely fine tuning of those kinds of variables.
> i mean by not powerful enough that the RAW converter's settings are not > controllable to the degree that i want without way too much time spent on > it. the converter's adjustments are too coarse. what would take me a couple > of minutes in the RAW converter takes me about ten seconds with my suite of > plugins. i usually don't change saturation from what is captured and my > sharpness settings are fixed for nearly everything i do. i spend most of my > time working on highlight and shadow details. working in 16-bit mode, unless > you do lots of edits, the differences between doing it in the converter and > afterwards should be negligible, if you are doing identical adjustments. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:21 PM > Subject: Re: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 > > > > I find the RAW converter's adjustments to be very effective but very > > subtle. Perhaps that's what you're referring too. Changes in contrast, > > saturation, or sharpness are incremental. But with good exposures I > > find that adjustments made before conversion yield a superior final > > image. Yes, there are those images that require careful tweaking of > > levelsand curves as well as some clone work. But by and large, my best > > shots come out of the RAW converter in near finished condition. > >
