>the larger image has more shadow detail and is overall more pleasing. Keith, I agree, but as far as I can tell, one of the images has had no post camera processing. A somewhat one sided comparison.
Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW Kenneth Waller wrote: > Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera? > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW > > On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote: > > >>Interesting Albano, >>but I think the real comparison to be made is with two identical images, one >>RAW >>and one hi res jpeg and optimize each one. Thanks for posting this. > I'd not hesitate to suggest that shooting in RAW virtually always leads to a > better image technically. For instance I just stepped outside set my camera > up > on a tripod, put it in program mode, set my A20/2.8 on infinity and made two > shots, one as a jpg and one as RAW. In post processing the RAW image I > optimised the exposure and reduced lens CA (I have a library of offsets for > my > lenses) in the RAW convertor and in PS I sharpened the image, the other image > is straight from the camera: > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2846.JPG (3.8MB) > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2845.jpg (1.75MB) > > All the EXIF data should be relatively intact so I won't add any other > technical information. Sorry about the subject matter. > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is overall more pleasing. I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone... keith whaley ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
