it can all be done in the camera using predefined settings in exactly the same way as the conversion to jpeg is done in the camera.
-- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > Sent: 17 December 2006 01:28 > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: K10D review online > > I dont follow you, if you have to do this processing > at home with special ACR or Pentax sofware to open and print the > RAW files, then its not as "portable" or "universal" > a format as jpeg is which you can print directly > from the media card at minilabs, no? that would seem > to be a major feature of "shooting jpeg" if thats > all you want or need. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Bob W > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 4:15 PM > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: K10D review online > > > I don't know what the purpose of the jpeg option is. As far as I can > see, the only benefit of it is to store more pictures on the card. > > It is no more difficult to plug the camera into a printer and > print from > raw files. You can get usable results. Results that are at > least as good > as jpeg. > > To the best of my knowledge there are no intrinsic properties of raw > files that force anybody to do any post-processing at all. All of the > pictures that I have had from my Olympus, for example, have been > perfectly usable without post-processing. Of course, this doesn't mean > they are exhibition standard. But nor are jpegs under the same > circumstances. > > You can do an experiment and judge for yourself rather than > take my word > for it. Borrow a digital camera, shoot some raw, some jpeg, > and get some > prints. > > If you think about the processes that are going on, it must be true. > > Suppose you decide that you are going to 'shoot jpeg', which > only means > you're going to store jpeg. You make an exposure which the sensor > records. The software reads the data from the sensor, converts it to > jpeg on the fly and stores the results. > > When you walk up to the printer and plug the camera in, the > software in > the camera reads the jpeg file and converts it into the > format that the > printer understands. > > If you decide to shoot raw, then when you make an exposure > the software > reads the data from the sensor and stores it without converting it to > jpeg. > > When you walk up to the printer and plug the camera in, the > software in > the camera reads the raw file and converts it into the format that the > printer understands. > > There is no reason at all why the same algorithm that makes > jpeg results > USABLE, as you put it, wouldn't be used on the conversion from raw to > the printer format, since both processes start from the same > place, and > end up in the same place. > > -- > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > > Sent: 16 December 2006 20:45 > > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > > Subject: RE: K10D review online > > > > But isnt the purpose of using the jpeg output > > option of the camera so you can just go > > straight to a print lab and print the jpegs > > without having to do any digital processing > > of the images on a PC or laptop? It sounds > > like you cant do RAW and get instant **USABLE** > > results which is what I meant. > > jco > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
