I get it. Hard to keep up with this one. I went left at the fork and ran into a dead end.
On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > 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. -- 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.
