Yeah, it's a forking thread error, Paul.
On 11-09-27 8:45 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
What verbal adjective begins with f, is frequently not written out by
replacing it's letters by placeholders, and is often used by
passionate people like our friend Bill?
I get that, but it's not in this thread, which appears to be about shooting
jpegs and includes no comments from Bill. Perhaps it was in another branch of
the thread. I skipped most of it, so I wouldn't know.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Paul Stenquist<pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
"That would be the f-- message?"
Seriously Bill, at first i thought you were just cussing.
Huh???
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Paul Stenquist<pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-09-27 5:38 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Larry Colen
I just ran across my photos from burning man a year ago where I
hadn't realized that my freshly repaired K20 had been reset to the
factory default of "shoot jpeg". If I cared so little about my
photos that I wanted to shoot JPEGs, I wouldn't spend the money on a
DSLR.
If you get the exposure (and white balance, and ...) correct in camera JPEG is
all you need.
The best film-days analogy I have is that shooting straight to JPEG is like
shooting Polaroids, and shooting RAW is like shooting negatives. The Polaroid
gives you the convenience of straight to finished picture, at the expense of
doing any darkroom work.
Everyone shoots differently and decides what convenience level they prefer and
what they'll give up for it. For me, the RAW image I get in the camera is just
the beginning of the journey to a finished image. I don't publicly display a
single image, not one, that I can say is Straight Out Of Camera. I have lots of
images that I've never edited, but it's because they haven't been flagged as
keepers for further work.
-bmw
I agree with Bruce. Although I might compare shooting jpegs to shooting
transparency film, while shooting RAW is more like shooting negative film.
However, RAW conversion gives you many more options for image improvement than
does printing a negative. For example, you can set the white point and black
point to suite the image perfectly, and you can adjust contrast and brightness
in the midrange without changing those end point values. You can fill shadow
areas with a bit of light while leaving the rest of the image virtually
untouched. You can fine tune your saturation and white point. And more. The
only time I shoot jpegs is when I have to produce 500 frames for virtual tours.
But for anything else, it's RAW. I'd be lost without the control that RAW
affords.
Paul
--
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.
