Hello Alex, What might be considered the "next" best implementation of raw convertor? I don't want to spend the money on Photoshop CS just yet.
-- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 16, 2004, 10:51:50 AM, you wrote: aw> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably >> want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean >> investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm >> not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it >> would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use >> TIFF, right? aw> Yes. aw> TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though aw> (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs aw> 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. aw> You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to aw> have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax aw> photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. aw> alex
