This isn't really a big deal for me. But when saying this I see the camera itself as a combination of hardware and software. When shooting jpg you rely on the software that makes the file. When shooting raw you do this yourself. The difference is that you control the software yourself. >From my point of view, shooting jpg is a bit like driving a car on autopilot. Thats relying on software.
But, this is far from the original topic. If nobody understands me, then I'll just suffer on my own, knowing I am right ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20. mars 2006 21:59 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ist D exposure question > > >"relying too much on software". > >"I would say that shooting jgp is exactly doing that". > > To me it seems just the opposite. > While it's possible to get a "perfect" image in jpeg, right out of the > camera w/o post capture software, you can't say the same about RAW. > > Kenneth Waller > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Øsleby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: ist D exposure question > > > > Shel. > > I think you are misreading me a bit. I don't think I am "relying too > much > > on > > software to get good results". > > I did _not_ say: Don't worry about exposure, getting it right in the > > camera > > is for old farts. Let the super-duper-mega-auto functions in RSE do the > > job > > for you ;-) > > > > My attitude is: Getting right exposure in the first place is better than > > tweaking later. No doubt about that, in my mind. > > > > Under difficult conditions I do use centre weighted or spot metering. > > Under > > regular conditions I tend to use the multi pattern system. I also study > > histogram closely when needed. After a while I have been quite good at > > predicting how the DS behaves under different conditions. > > > > As I have several times. I have shot a lot more than a couple of rolls > of > > slides in my past. There I had no software to lean on, just centre > > weighted > > metering. I'm not pretending to be an expert, but I do have some > > experience. > > > > What I really had trouble with when going digital was to understand how > to > > control the pictures when converting raw files. After changing to > RSE/RSP > > my > > skills have improved. The auto functions gave me a baseline, something > to > > start my experiments from. I'm not a master yet, but I am getting > better. > > > > My point in my post to Rick was that the latitude (I called it headroom) > > raw > > gives, is very handy when the camera behaves unpredictable. As we all > know > > it does now and then. > > > > Back to "relying too much on software". I would say that shooting jgp is > > exactly doing that. When leaving the job to the logarithms in the > camera, > > you have very little control. This makes it harder to get to know the > > media > > and the tool. Are you with me on this, Shel? > > > > > > Tim > > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 20. mars 2006 15:09 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: ist D exposure question > >> > >> A better way to be sure you get it right is to learn how to expose > >> properly > >> in the first place. The DS and the D offer spot metering. You could > try > >> experimenting (and learning) with that. Shooting RAW may give you some > >> additional latitude, but there is no substitute for proper exposure. > >> > >> It sounds like you're relying too much on software to get good results. > >> It > >> may be difficult to return from working in that way. Learn the right > >> exposure in the beginning. You will have better photos forever. By > >> relying on software, you'll never learn how to expose. > >> > >> Shel > >> > >> > >> > >> > [Original Message] > >> > From: Tim Øsleby > >> > >> > Whatever mode you used, my guess is that the camera went for the grey > >> > in > >> the > >> > sky behind the trees. It can be rather tricky to figure out what the > >> meter > >> > will think. Also in Av and Tv mode. So there is only one way to be > sure > >> to > >> > get it right. Shooting raw. > >> > > >> > When I bought the camera (a DS), I had a lot of frustrations myself. > >> After a > >> > while I tried raw, but could not get on top of converting. Then I > >> downloaded > >> > Rawshooter Essential. This program has some auto correction features > >> that > >> > were just what I needed. All I had to do was using ALT + E, and the > >> program > >> > suggested a conversion. Often this is close to a good image, and it > >> > sure > >> was > >> > a good starting point, to play with the image. I have learned a lot > in > >> > a > >> > matter of little time using this. > >> > > >> > Most likely you will end up using raw sooner or later. So what I am > >> saying > >> > is that _now_ might be the time to take that step. The general > quality > >> is > >> > better, and it does give you more headroom when shooting. > >> > > >> > Now I have upgraded to RSP, the pay version of RSE. There I have > >> > levels, > >> > curves and cropping in the converter. So now I do most of the > tweaking > >> in > >> > one program. The downside of this is that it makes me a bad > >> photoshooper. > >> > But for now, I can live with that. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >
