Hi Don, On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:03:40 +0200, Don Williams wrote:
>Sorry ... I haven't made myself clear. I >haven't used the 'in camera' histogram >at all. I've been talking about >Photoshop only. I haven't tried working >on that tiny screen at all. OK, understood ... What I meant to say was that to get an 'optimal' RAW image for further processing, that has no blown highlights and has maximum details in the shadows (smooth gradients, no posterizing) you would want the on-camera historgram, to be as far as possible to the right. That is where most of the 4096 available levels are for the 12-bit captured luminosity. This is due to the linear nature of the RAW image, most luminosity 'steps' are at the 'lighter' side ... >I do shift it all to the right and that >gives excellent results. Visual yes, but the image will be 'best' if you do NOT NEED to shift the histogram in the RAW converter at all :-) <snip> >Have you looked at the 'artsy' crystal >pictures I posted? Yes, saw those, looked great ... >They are TIFF files because we >need lots of pixels for printing. Well as far as number of pixels go, there is no difference between RAW, TIFF or highest resolution JPG out of the camera. It is all 6 megapixels. The difference there is in the inherent quality in those 6 megapixels ... If you need a huge pixel-count for proper printing, it may pay off to UPSIZE the image during RAW conversion (at least in Photoshop CR). See discussion on another PDML thread ... Regards, JvW ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
