As are big pixels. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/20/2011 4:05 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Not wishing to start an argument with someone who is much more
> knowledgeable about post-processing than I, but I just note that most
> of the images you show here are in good light. In such circumstances,
> JPEG is indeed OK. But if you are like me, often shooting at night in
> crummy light, often converting to B&W etc., then RAW is the way to
> go.
>
> Cheers, Nathan
>
> Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu
> http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com PICTURE OF THE WEEK:
> http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
>
> YNWA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Moose wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2011 10:25 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>>> Chris, these were easy lighting situations so it is not
>>> surprising that the JPGs were good. But in general, shooting JPG
>>> only is like throwing your negatives away after having minilab
>>> prints made.
>>
>> Weellll I agree with the sentiment, but technically it need not be
>> that bad.
>>
>> When I first got a film scanner, I was amazed at the tonal range
>> available from color negs. White skies on old prints turned out to
>> have blue sky and nice clouds, there was detail in shadows, and so
>> on.
>>
>> Similar detail can certainly be lost in JPEGs compared to RAW.
>> However, better JPEG processors compress the ends of the histogram,
>> rather than simply letting them clip to black or white, as minilab
>> prints do. If one avoids blowing highlights through overloading the
>> sensor, a remarkably wide range of brightness may be piled up at
>> the top and bottom.
>>
>> I always shoot RAW when it is available. Still, I recently bought a
>> JPEG only camera for its other features/qualities. You may recall
>> the good sized sample gallery I posted. I think it conclusively
>> shows that, with proper technique, both in making the exposure and
>> processing it, a considerably greater quality result than found
>> minilab prints is possible.
>> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots>
>>
>>
>>
For you, what you say may be true, given your personal preferences,
rules, equipment, referred subjects, technique, etc.
>> To generalize what you find to be true for you to every camera and
>> user is, I think, mistaken.
>>
>> Moose --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|