Hmmm. I guess you mean in terms of the amount of control one can exercise? Perhaps there's something valid in that. Shadows/Highlights does seem to give more control than levels, although I'm not sure that it's really anything more than a shortcut way of using curves, levels, and brightness/contrast. Only a programmer who has looked at the code would know for sure. But these are all post-conversion tools, so the comparison isn't quite right.
I think the difference is better explained by saying that shooting RAW adds another level of control. If you shoot tiff or jpeg, the camera does some of the sharpening, contrast and saturation adjustment. When you shoot RAW, it's as though you're getting the undeveloped film. You seize control right from the start. It's like being able to control the contrast of your BW through exposure and processing time, agitation, etc. However, with RAW there are many more levels of control you can exercise. You start from a base level that is not very sharp, not very contrasty, and not very saturated. Working with your RAW conversion sliders, you can achieve fine adjustment of all those variables and many more. One of the most valuable variables, for example, is temperature. You can literally change the color of the light. That's difficult to achieve with conventional PhotoShop tools, if you have to start with a tiff or jpeg. I still use conventional PS tools after the RAW conversion. ! I frequently use Shadows/Highlights, the burn and dodge tools, and various others. However, I do find that I don't generally need any levels correction after a good conversion effort. > I certainly can't argue against that position, and it does make some sense > to me. If that's the case, then digi looks a little better. While I know > it's a bit of a stretch and probably not the best comparison, would you say > that RAW provides results like PS Shadows/Highlights while TIFF and JPEG > are more like Levels? > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 11/23/2004 7:45:19 AM > > Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie" > > > > I think that may be the case if you shoot jpegs or tiffs in a dslr. > > However, when shooting RAW you have more control over > > the shadows and highlights in conversion. > > > > > Hmmm ... seems that there are/were a lot of people claiming that a DSLR > > > generally falls into the range of slide film, which is a couple of > stops or > > > so less than color negative film. Has that changed recently? > >
