On May 18, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
The problem is that Ann wants to open RAW format under Windows 98 and, as far as I know, Elements 3 requires Windows 2000 or XP.
YIkes - yeah thats true.
I don't know a lot about Windows. Is it impossible to simply upgrade to Windows XP?
But if I shoot NOT in raw, and my exposures and white balance and everything
are on target - that is as if I had made a "good negative" - should't I
be able to produce a file that will meet the stock agency's requirements for
a digital image now that I have a camera with 8 megs?
If you have the camera's image processing parameters set correctly for the scene you are trying to capture, if the scene's dynamics will translate well to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] RGB JPEG rendering, if you get the exposure pretty close to correct, if the image does not need extensive post-processing, and if the camera's JPEG rendering is clean enough (free of JPEG artifacts), then a JPEG file produced in camera should be just as good as what you produce with a RAW format exposure and post processing for most purposes.
That makes it sound harder than it is, yes. I'd say three-quarters of the photos I see could be captured with JPEG rendering just fine. The problem is that, for me anyway, the remaining one-quarter are usually the photos *I* want to take. 8^|
so much about the digital stuff I'm ignorant of - and already forgetting stuff I've learned.
My advice:
- Bolster your memory by keeping a notebook.
- Stop thinking of it as "the digital stuff" and think of it simply as photography.
It's not a burden, not any more than learning new techniques for handling and rendering film images anyway. It is different, that's all: new material to work with, understand, and learn how to use to best advantage. Accept that learning photography is a process of constant learning new things.
Godfrey
