1) It does, no question about it. You can correct WB and exposure ( ac couple of steps to either side) without quality loss in the computer, if it's RAW. This means you can correct both brigghness and colour without loosing image quality/information. Especially useful when you want to avoid burned out highlights or bring out subtle shades. Buy a Phase One LE license. It's cheap (appr. 100 USD) and you'll never regret it.
Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. marts 2005 07:00 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Best all around RAW converter/manager(s)?? In a message dated 3/12/2005 5:27:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's two questions I have for those out there that have worked with RAW for a while: 1. How do you know that your RAW workflow, assuming one's being used, consistently produces better results than the in-camera processing would have produced? ======= Well, I don't know for sure, but I am pretty sure. And I don't base this on converters, or having done a lot of photo editing, or anything else but my experience in using both PaintShop Pro's PSP files and Photoshop's PSD files. I've done a fair amount of graphic drawing/painting in the past and what I found was that jpegs degrade with each save. So I worked with PSP files only (now PSD files) which do NOT degrade at all. You can edit and save and edit and save and go back and they still look good. If you try that on a jpeg you can literally, I mean literally, see it degrade each time. For web pages, I would turn a finalized version of a PSP/PSD file into a jpeg (while still having the PSD/PSD file saved). Ergo, RAW to PSD or PSP -- no information loss. Simply the best way to go for the very best images, IF you do a lot of post processing or even ANY post processing. If not, then you don't need it. HTH, Marnie
