View Single Post
  #75  
Old November 30th 12, 11:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tim Conway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
intuitive and
no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

No real improvement?

Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5
stops
of
dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
have
an
example?

then you're doing something wrong.

a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

I agree.
btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...



One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
ones,
is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different
editing
sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
format.


Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers
intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD.

I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I
usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG.
Tim