RAW processing isn't really scary. It just uses files that have not been modified by in-camera processing/tweaking. The only thing that is really noticeably off is color balance, but the RAW processing software usually has the choices that the camera would (auto, tungsten, daylight, shade, etc.) that you can choose from a menu, and you can lighten, darken, change contrast. When shooting theater productions, I usually don't correct for colors as the slightly warm tone of the floodlights is aesthetically pleasing.
Jeffery On Nov 23, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Eric Weir wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >> LR3 does an amazing job of raw processing. > > So my interim solution -- till I get to where I can begin to do the > processing -- could be to let LR3 do the processing instead of relying on the > camera to do it? > > Keep in mind most of my images are garbage right now. Not being able to go > back and reprocess them decades from now is not going to be any great loss. > > Would raw files converted by LR3 look as good as jpegs? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > eew...@bellsouth.net > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
