for those who ask about RAW vs JPG. a good example

Flip through the different test images and you will see the difference RAW
does when you encounter a big oops in exposure etc..
it could be the difference between spending money on a reshoot or actually
getting a image that is printable. and sometimes a reshoot can get
expensive.

http://www.pbase.com/hugodrax/miscpics

Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and avoid
editing and raw conversion.

"Hugo Drax" wrote in message
...
Flip through the different test images and you will see the difference RAW
does when you encounter a big oops in exposure etc..
it could be the difference between spending money on a reshoot or actually
getting a image that is printable. and sometimes a reshoot can get
expensive.

http://www.pbase.com/hugodrax/miscpics

Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and avoid
editing and raw conversion.

"Hugo Drax" wrote in message
...
Flip through the different test images and you will see the difference RAW
does when you encounter a big oops in exposure etc..
it could be the difference between spending money on a reshoot or actually
getting a image that is printable. and sometimes a reshoot can get
expensive.

http://www.pbase.com/hugodrax/miscpics

In article , YoYo
wrote:

Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and avoid
editing and raw conversion.

"Hugo Drax" wrote in message
...
Flip through the different test images and you will see the difference RAW
does when you encounter a big oops in exposure etc..
it could be the difference between spending money on a reshoot or actually
getting a image that is printable. and sometimes a reshoot can get
expensive.

http://www.pbase.com/hugodrax/miscpics

Or you can exercise the greatest control possible for maximum quality.
Basically, you don't know ****.

"YoYo" your.business.com wrote in message
...
Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and avoid
editing and raw conversion.

That's a strange comment because sometimes post-processing or editing is
essential for anything other than simple snapshots. Before an exposure is
made, a photographer has absolute control over four things:
composition/framing, shutter speed, aperture, and filter-stacking but only
the latter three govern exposure. That's it. If you're really lucky, you
might have some control over external lighting using flash or reflectors.

Neither film nor digital imagers respond to light the way the human eye
does, nor do they have any idea about what you're trying to do with the
picture artistically, so, as the old saying goes, you have to expose for the
highlights and develop for the shadows, whether using filim or digital.
Well, guess what? The "develop" part for digital cameras sometimes means
post-processing, i.e., editing photos, to achieve a well-balanced
properly-exposed-looking print.

Do the best film photographers just drop their shots off at a local one-hour
photo booth and hope for the best? Not hardly. Professional
photographers--and Ansel Adams is probably the most-referenced
example--spend as much or more time in the darkroom with a negative and
print as they did in setting up and taking their shots in the first place.
Terms like "dodging", "burning", and "contrast masking" weren't invented for
Photoshop, but instead describe actual physical *editing* techniques used by
film photographers to change the appearance of their prints as they're being
exposed to paper. Dodging, for example, involves interposing
objects--sometimes just fingers--between the enlarger lens and the paper to
differentially govern exposure over sections of the frame. Thank heavens,
we digital photographers don't have to go through such gymnastics, nor do we
have to pay for the stacks of expensive photo paper resulting from mistakes.
But we often have virtually edit, or post-process, all the same.

So even if the goal is a realistic-looking landscape, there is absolutely
nothing philosophically or artistically wrong about post-processing RAW
images from a digital camera. Post-processing doesn't always imply a lack
of skill and often it's the only way to get a print worth a second look.

I know I have heard you babies cry before
but edit away and stop crying
some dont have to and live well...

"Paul H." wrote in message
...

"YoYo" your.business.com wrote in message
...
Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and
avoid
editing and raw conversion.

That's a strange comment because sometimes post-processing or editing is
essential for anything other than simple snapshots. Before an exposure
is
made, a photographer has absolute control over four things:
composition/framing, shutter speed, aperture, and filter-stacking but only
the latter three govern exposure. That's it. If you're really lucky, you
might have some control over external lighting using flash or reflectors.

Neither film nor digital imagers respond to light the way the human eye
does, nor do they have any idea about what you're trying to do with the
picture artistically, so, as the old saying goes, you have to expose for
the
highlights and develop for the shadows, whether using filim or digital.
Well, guess what? The "develop" part for digital cameras sometimes means
post-processing, i.e., editing photos, to achieve a well-balanced
properly-exposed-looking print.

Do the best film photographers just drop their shots off at a local
one-hour
photo booth and hope for the best? Not hardly. Professional
photographers--and Ansel Adams is probably the most-referenced
example--spend as much or more time in the darkroom with a negative and
print as they did in setting up and taking their shots in the first place.
Terms like "dodging", "burning", and "contrast masking" weren't invented
for
Photoshop, but instead describe actual physical *editing* techniques used
by
film photographers to change the appearance of their prints as they're
being
exposed to paper. Dodging, for example, involves interposing
objects--sometimes just fingers--between the enlarger lens and the paper
to
differentially govern exposure over sections of the frame. Thank
heavens,
we digital photographers don't have to go through such gymnastics, nor do
we
have to pay for the stacks of expensive photo paper resulting from
mistakes.
But we often have virtually edit, or post-process, all the same.

So even if the goal is a realistic-looking landscape, there is absolutely
nothing philosophically or artistically wrong about post-processing RAW
images from a digital camera. Post-processing doesn't always imply a lack
of skill and often it's the only way to get a print worth a second look.

Your right I don't know you.

Kinda glad I don't!
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , YoYo
wrote:

Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and
avoid
editing and raw conversion.

"Hugo Drax" wrote in message
...
Flip through the different test images and you will see the difference
RAW
does when you encounter a big oops in exposure etc..
it could be the difference between spending money on a reshoot or
actually
getting a image that is printable. and sometimes a reshoot can get
expensive.

http://www.pbase.com/hugodrax/miscpics

Or you can exercise the greatest control possible for maximum quality.
Basically, you don't know ****.

In article ,
says...

Or you can learn how to take photos correctly in the first place and avoid
editing and raw conversion.

Or you can exercise the greatest control possible for maximum quality.
Basically, you don't know ****.

What do you expect from a top poster?

In article , says...
I know I have heard you babies cry before
but edit away and stop crying
some dont have to and live well...

#1: Stop top posting. It's more annoying than your attitude.

#2: I guess you shouldn't "edit" your photos at all. Turn off auto
white balance, don't sharpen and always meter properly. Good luck
making anything that looks good.

In article , says...
I know I have heard you babies cry before
but edit away and stop crying
some dont have to and live well...

#1: Stop top posting. It's more annoying than your attitude.

#2: I guess you shouldn't "edit" your photos at all. Turn off auto
white balance, don't sharpen and always meter properly. Good luck
making anything that looks good.