I understand perfectly what you're talking about. It's just that I believe
most view the analogy opposite of the way you're stating it. I did too for
a while.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:51:50 EST
In a message dated 12/1/2005 6:31:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did it strike again? :)
Raw is comparable to transparency film in that very little interpretation
is
done to what could be considered the first generation image. After that
the
analogy between digital files and film qucikly swings to one where Raw is
more analagous to negative film than to transparency. I
In other words .jpg and .tif formats give you less overall range of control
post-shutter release as did transparency film. Raw format and negative
film
provide a larger range of control post-shutter release.
Tom C.
=======
RAW is like slide film in that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. Post
processing
is up to the photographer, be it scanning, adjusting in PS or whatever.
(Don't
know about you, but I used to scan my slides and adjust them in Elements.)
The control is with the photographer.
JPEG is like print film in that the colors are very much up to some lab
person's interpretation and/or up to the in-camera software. The control is
NOT
with the photographer.
See?
I am talking about control.
Marnie
