On 17/12/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your experiences mirror mine Ken. That's not to say that I don't think > RAW is good - it is. RAW is excellent at allowing a greater range in the > exposure, sure. But when printing to these sizes, that's it. At 13"X19" > the quality of the pics is determined by the printer (and the capability > of the person preparing the image for that printer), not whether it was > shot RAW or jpeg. A lot of people here get confused by this.
I think the benefits of RAW are generally understated and I feel this particularly when I hear the main benefit being touted as simply that shooting RAW provides greater exposure range. Sure it's often a benefit in wide DR situations but what tends to be of greater value to me is the control that RAW image processing provides in areas like the ameliorating of lens CA, control of noise reduction, gamma correction and colour calibration, management and correction and reduction of the effects of bloom. These are problems that are difficult if not impossible to remedy when presented with a JPEG file and many of these anomalies become more obvious as print size is increased. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
