DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:00:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2011-04-24 13:58 , John McWilliams wrote:

RAW is the preferred spelling.

No.

Well, I prefer it.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

In most cases the adjustments are trivial (assuming good exposure - and
even there the latitude is quite large with raw - well beyond that of JPG).

If it's a case of a card worth of photos, then it's easily batched from
raw to JPG. Or in applications like Lightroom or Aperture, settings can
be applied en-masse (and losslessly) to an entire photoshoot.

Yep, but in my experience what you get out of a batch conversion with
automated settings is (on average) not as good camera JPEGs.

who said anything about automated?

if you take multiple photos in the same conditions with the same
settings, then there doesn't need to be individual adjustments. all you
need to do is adjust one photo and apply the adjustments to the rest.
you can still tweak individual images as needed.

On 2011-04-25 06:57 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In , nospam says...
if you take multiple photos in the same conditions with the same
settings, then there doesn't need to be individual adjustments. all you
need to do is adjust one photo and apply the adjustments to the rest.
you can still tweak individual images as needed.

In practice, even in a set, you can't blindly apply the same settings to
all shots. Or perhaps we have different views of what a "set" is.

In a studio setting, where lights are set per the aperture, and shutter
time is constant, just about every image is identical in exposure and
color (except when you shoot before the lights have completely re-cycled).

So if one needs a magenta cooling, higher blackpoint, less contrast,
etc., then the same applies to every image. Apply it to one then to all.

If it the case of more "random" field shooting, then it may not work out
that way of course - however, if one spends the day shooting at an event
in the same light outdoor, there is a good chance many of the same
changes will apply to all the images in that set.

Of course what's on the data card may be two or more sets of images.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

if you take multiple photos in the same conditions with the same
settings, then there doesn't need to be individual adjustments. all you
need to do is adjust one photo and apply the adjustments to the rest.
you can still tweak individual images as needed.

In practice, even in a set, you can't blindly apply the same settings to
all shots. Or perhaps we have different views of what a "set" is.

of course you can. if the lighting does not change and the camera
settings do not change, exposure and colour balance will be consistent
for every shot. fix one and you've fixed all of them.

On 4/25/11 3:57 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In , nospam says...
if you take multiple photos in the same conditions with the same
settings, then there doesn't need to be individual adjustments. all you
need to do is adjust one photo and apply the adjustments to the rest.
you can still tweak individual images as needed.

In practice, even in a set, you can't blindly apply the same settings to
all shots. Or perhaps we have different views of what a "set" is.

Well, you can, but it isn't "blind." What do you think the camera does
when it converts from plain pixels to finished JPEG?

I don't think any one is saying that it's one and done here, but as a
first step in processing, one might apply a color balance, tweak it,
apply + or - to exposure, contrast, etc. etc., then apply that to a
range of photos. Easy to do even before deletions. Then you go through,
mark for delete, rate, and rename if you wish.

On 2011-04-24 18:42 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:00:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2011-04-24 13:58 , John McWilliams wrote:

RAW is the preferred spelling.

No.

Well, I prefer it.

Hooray.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2011041810074571183-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2011-04-17 15:51:55 -0700, Troy Piggins said:


BTW it's "raw", not "raw,", and "RAW", not "RAW.".

Punctuation always appears before the closing quote. It is in the AP style
guide. :-)

Provided the punctuation is either a period or comma. :-)

Dunno anything about "the AP style guide," but this is correct use of
punctuation in the U.S. It's not the way the British do it. (But then they
aren't always consistent either.)

All other punctuation is either inside or outside the closing quote
according to where it logically belongs. In the case of periods and commas
it's always inside whether it logically belongs there or not.

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

of course you can. if the lighting does not change and the camera
settings do not change, exposure and colour balance will be consistent
for every shot. fix one and you've fixed all of them.

But lighting does change if you walk around in a city. It all depends on
what you are shooting.

sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. in a studio, it won't.
that's why i said *if* the lighting does not change...

On 2011-04-26 12:25:16 -0700, Neil Harrington said:

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
news:2011041810074571183-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2011-04-17 15:51:55 -0700, Troy Piggins said:


BTW it's "raw", not "raw,", and "RAW", not "RAW.".

Punctuation always appears before the closing quote. It is in the AP
style guide. :-)

Provided the punctuation is either a period or comma. :-)

Dunno anything about "the AP style guide," but this is correct use of
punctuation in the U.S. It's not the way the British do it. (But then
they aren't always consistent either.)

All other punctuation is either inside or outside the closing quote
according to where it logically belongs. In the case of periods and
commas it's always inside whether it logically belongs there or not.

The same is true of question marks and exclamation points. I may make
sense to write something like "Tom shouted, 'What the heck are you
doing with my cat?'!", but anyone who actually puts a string of
punctuation to like that is going to raise some eyebrows.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2011042614111813036-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2011-04-26 12:25:16 -0700, Neil Harrington said:

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
news:2011041810074571183-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2011-04-17 15:51:55 -0700, Troy Piggins said:


BTW it's "raw", not "raw,", and "RAW", not "RAW.".

Punctuation always appears before the closing quote. It is in the AP
style guide. :-)

Provided the punctuation is either a period or comma. :-)

Dunno anything about "the AP style guide," but this is correct use of
punctuation in the U.S. It's not the way the British do it. (But then
they aren't always consistent either.)

All other punctuation is either inside or outside the closing quote
according to where it logically belongs. In the case of periods and
commas it's always inside whether it logically belongs there or not.

The same is true of question marks and exclamation points. I may make
sense to write something like "Tom shouted, 'What the heck are you doing
with my cat?'!", but anyone who actually puts a string of punctuation to
like that is going to raise some eyebrows.

That's an example of why it really would have been a good idea to accept the
"interrobang" as a standard punctuation mark. In that case it's sort of
ambiguous; you could as easily argue in favor of the exclamation point being
inside the inner quotes along with the question mark as outside: "Tom
shouted, 'What the heck are you doing with my cat?!'" reads well enough and
I think few would object, outside of formal writing of course. Putting the
exclamation point separately and outside of the inner quotes does separate
the acting of shouting from what is being shouted, which I realize is your
intent, but I don't think it really makes any difference. Maybe in a
different case it might.

Probably the best argument against the interrobang is that it wouldn't have
any real use in formal writing, and in informal writing it wouldn't be
necessary since the writer could always use both marks.