RE: "Raw" for dummies ?
Judy, I also use a G-5 as my "vest-pocket camera" (I wear a large vest).
There are distinct advantages to RAW in so far as modifications in RAW are
doable & provide significant image control. However, for modest sized prints
(especially of grandchildren in their swimming pool) that will rarely make
it beyond the refrigerator pin-up fine setting on JPEG works quite
adequately. I use RAW when I take "real" photos" and make adjustment in
light, contrast, even color among several other possible settings. but I use
JPEG fine when I shoot tons of grandchildren pictures for grandma. Joachim.
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: "Raw" for dummies ?
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Don Bryant wrote:
> .... the image quality
> is good, as long as light level isn't low or the noise is quite high, and
> does give you RAW: the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1.
AFAIK, the picture quality of my Canon (I forget the numbers & keep them
taped up, but I think PS 5) is fine, though I never have done RAW -- I
haven't felt the need. I've been told it's more trouble than it's worth,
which I sincerely hope is true -- but that could be my ignorance.
Could someone do a very brief "raw for dummies" -- once over lightly, why
I should use it, why it's better than just ad hoc touch-up/ adjustments in
Photoshop (and sometimes not even that)? How much do folks really use it,
or is it mostly just nice to know it's there ?
I'm not aware of any "noise" problem, though washed out highlights are
rampant. Can "raw" help that?
Anyway, it seems to me you have to know in advance... to choose either raw
or jpeg format when shooting. But how do I know if I should have done it
in raw until I've seen the file on the monitor?
[Read My T-Shirt] for President: A True History of the Political Front and
Back, by Judy Seigel. For relevant particulars see,
"I'd recommend it for a Pulitzer Prize, except I lack the credentials."