Hi Tom, On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:30:52 -0700, Tom C wrote:
>All this makes me wonder several things... Just for reference, I have been using the istD for just over a year now, started out using JPG and TIFF and switched to almost exclusively RAW after 3 or 4 months ... (Using Photoshop CS) >1. How often is it that *I* will be able to come up with a better image >than the in-camera software would generate? In my experience, about half the time :-) >2. How will I ever know that the camera might have done better, if I shoot >in RAW and therefore never will have seen the TIFF file the camera would >have produced (unless I take the time to do two indentical exposures back to >back in both RAW and TIFF)? You won't know, except for specific test-scenarios ... >3. Do I have the time to learn how to adjust all the parameters, especially >ones that I have a marginal understanding of, CA for example? 99% of the advantages of using RAW are in the EXPOSURE corrections, these are quite easy to master >4. Would I be better off improving my photography skills vs. my image >manipulation skills? Yes, but doing both is not out of the question, as said, I feel that most of the advantages of RAW can be had with minimal investment in gaining new skills. Equally important as the actual image processing/adjustment, is setting up a workflow that will allow you to quickly process many similar exposed images without having to manually tweak each individual one. >I understand why RAW has benefits... but in some respects as pointed out, >it's akin to working with a negative. As a mainly transparency shooter, it >seems that the TIFF file is more analogous with a transparency. Not really, the TIFF (or JPG) is more analogous with a Polaroid, it has been 'developed' IN the camera, using less processing power and time than available later on a 'real' computer :-) It is making a 'best guess' at exposure and other settings, and you are stuck with that. With RAW, YOU can make the guess and redo it as often as you like until the result is the best for you. >I can adjust TIFFS or I can scan a transparency and adjust it. >Granted, not with the same latitude as a negative or a RAW image. Correct, the RAW image from the camera has the largest latitude you can get from this camera, all other formats are derivatives ... >Not making a case against RAW, just trying to understand the trade offs... >time being a major factor. Yes, that would be the major reason NOT to do RAW, it does take an initial learning curve. As said, more because of the work-flow than the actual image processing ... (another point is needing larger storage, I carry 4 Gb of CF cards with me for a total of 280 exposures in RAW :-) Regards, JvW ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
