On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:11:07 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:


"Alfred Molon" wrote:
In article 2012113023043436098-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
There are a few more things that you can do with a RAW file which you
cannot do with a JPEG. The first of these is apply camera and/or lens
profiles. You can correct CA and fringing far more effectively than any
such correction you could apply to JPEGs.

There is so much more.

But some cameras have very good JPEG engines and are very good at
nailing down the white balance. With such cameras you only need to
process the RAW in a small percentage of cases.


If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)


You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of thousands of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the colour's of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all humans are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)

I've often been surprised by the accuracy of the camera, even using those awful
compact fluorescents.