What about the stand alone DNG converter from Adobe?
Is there a qualitative difference between the output of the earlier DNG
converters & the current version?
On 3/25/2014 8:10 AM, Mark C wrote:
Not to mention that RAW conversion tools are continually improving -
the 2012 ACR engine in Photoshop CS6 being one example.
On 3/24/2014 3:57 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I figure my rendering skills are always improving, so I hang onto
the RAWs. Just the other day I wanted to print a picture of my dog
who had passed away. I went back to a 2004 shot I had produced with
the *istD. I looked at the tiff and felt that it left something to
be desired. Went back and did a new conversion. The result was a
much nicer photo.
Paul On Mar 24, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Kenneth Waller
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yep. At that point I consider the tiffs as my negative - I don't
need to go back and convert the RAW again.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Robinson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Keep
the PEFs?
On Mar 14, 2014, at 23:16 , Ken Waller <[email protected]>
wrote:
1. Should I convert all the old PEF files to DNG?
If you're keeping the RAW files I'd say yes. After a time
period after RAW file conversion I generall delete the RAW
files.
Wow!
To my mind, this is like: "After a time period after making
prints from my negatives, I generally throw away the
negatives". Really?
-Charles
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
