On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > I don't thing Photoshop deals with RAW images anyway, does it? A > RAW image doesn't even make sense until it's been interpolated into > RGB. > Anyway, as usual I care little... just having a good ol' fashioned > pedantic discussion.... ;-)
The problem, Cory, is that the question I was responding to, and subsequent discussion, was a bona fide question by a new user on how best to work with his K10D RAW image files. Not all of us are interested in theoretical pedantry. > Seriously though... many image processing operations are not doing > what they advertise if the data being operated on is log instead of > linear. It may still be a useful effect, but not "truth in > advertising" > anymore. There is no "truth in advertising" when it comes to taking a digital capture and transforming it to a quality rendering. Mathematical algorithms functions do exactly what they are programmed to do, to the limits of resolution of the representational medium. One works with the tools available to produce a pleasing/accurate (take your pick in whatever proportion you desire) result, regardless of what "errors" (more precisely, "deviations from theory") might exist. Pedantry does not produce photographs. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
