I thought like that, until I met an image wghich the Pentax convertor was soo poor with that I couldn't ignore it. Then I kept seeing it elsewhere too, and suddenly I couldn't work with it any more, much to my cost (and Adobe's gain).
If I wasn't using RAW, I would be using jpg. You really cant tell a significant difference unless you need the advantage of 16 bit colour for manipulation. The biggest plus for RAW is not the lack of compression issues but the ability to adjust exposure and white balance etc after the event asnd recover detail which would otherwise be lost in the highlights or shadows. > -----Original Message----- > From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 May 2004 20:24 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR > > > Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the > Pentax RAW converter. Perhaps my eyesight is poor. I do not > have problems with it. In fact, I like very much being able > quickly to adjust an images' color temperature by > experimenting with the white balance settings. > > Beyond that, my reasoning for not using jpeg is: Why ever > would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer > and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better > photographer, then shoot at anything less than the highest > resolution? It feels like using cheap film. If not RAW, I > would be shooting TIFF, which produces even larger files. > > Also, Alejandro suggested a portable PC with various > appurtenances. I've already decided against that. I am > already too burdened with stuff when I travel. My office > provides me with laptops. Over the past six years I have had > two of them. I have taken them on two trips out of several dozen. > > Eventually I will probably get an image tank of some kind. > > Joe > > >
