Re: Thanks, I think --Re: "Raw" for dummies ?
Perhaps I need to fly to NYC and walk the Hudson and help you out for a day . . err, a late night.
On February2007, at 9:15 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
Thanks to all for the good info and advice. I think though that I'm going to have to try it for myself, dammit. Because I suspect that for my circumstances and purposes at least some of those refinements are irrelevant... tho I sure would have liked more give in washed out highlights. I was grabbing people on the move, who kindly obliged by standing still for a few moments, but circumstances didn't permit me to say "that background is too sunny, would you please cross the street?" I did, BTW, set the camera to "underexpose" about 1/3 stop. (Maybe I should have done more.)
Those burnt-out backgrounds, and sometimes faces, or, oh misery, white shirts, were the biggest problem. As for "noise," I think in the scale I was printing, it didn't come through. (Or maybe I liked it?)
I also think part of my resistance to the raw mode was because of the volume of the particular project I was doing -- The RNC & its marches. That was before gigabyte memory disks were "normal," or anyway available, and I would shoot as many as 100 in a day, so file size was an issue.
However, because I didn't use the camera jpeg original, permanent changes to camera neg weren't an issue. I made duplicate jpegs to work on & if they got screwed up, I could make a new duplicate from the original.
And now I'm going to reread everything. Thanks again.