> > RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking > RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, "bypasses most of > the processing on the camera." Most means not all.
No. A *ist-D will produce just about the same RAW image as a Nikon D-100, as far as the actual image pixels are concerned. The differences are mostly in those EXIF bits you're not interested in talking about. A Canon 300D, or a Sony point-and-shoot, or ... will produce different RAW data, because they use different sensors. > If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW, > take the same shot under the same conditions (don't forget to use your > tripod <g>) and then compare the images. According to you, they should be > the same. Do the experiment, and let us know what results you've come up > with. In fact, post 'em so we can make up our own minds. But that's not looking at the same RAW images - it's looking at the images after they've been through whatever piece of software converts from the RAW image to a TIFF or JPEG. And in any case it's no more reasonable to assume that two digital cameras would produce the same RAW images than it is to assume that two 35mm cameras would produce the same images without carefully controlling the other variables (such as film & glass). You do lose one element of freedom with digital cameras; the choice of 'film' (primary image capture element) to put in it - sensors aren't interchangeable. But after that, you gain a lot of freedom. There wasn't a lot of choice on how to process C41 (or E6) emulsions; just about everybody used the same mix of chemicals and the same procedure. Black and White, though, was a very different story; there were all sorts of different developers from which you could pick the right one for your purpose to get extended range, or finer detail, or better contrast, ... Digital offers the possibility of just that sort of choice, but with the added advantage (to most) that you can do this sort of thing with colour images. To do that, though, you need to come up with the right developer (software) and the right process. Just living with the in-camera choices, or even the slightly less limited set of choices available in the software supplied with the camera, is like handing your B&W film to a high street one-hour lab. You'll get images back, but they may not be anywhere near as good as you could do in your own darkroom. I'm sorry if all this discussion is of no interest to you. There again, I didn't see complaints from you if anybody decided to discuss the benefits of Microdol vs. malt vinegar, which is equally irrelevant to the process of photography. Of course it's overwhelming, at present; the *ist-D has just come out, so a lot of people are dabbling in digital image capture for the first time. But, as Marnie points out, this provides an excellent opportunity for interested novices to learn from people who have a lot of relevant expertise. And we may see some better tools come out of this; I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory. Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too; interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
