Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 03/16/2014 22:32 (03/16/2014 13:32) |
| Message-ID | <8761ndj0cg.fld@apaflo.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | PeterN |
| Followups | YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle (11h & 40m) PeterN (1d, 1h & 34m) > Floyd L. Davidson |
PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:
PeterNThat is part of what RAW processing is about, and not an insignificant part either!
On 3/16/2014 7:13 AM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle
My point was anyway that raw is not about "getting the exposure right", but allowing post processing in good conditions.
PeterNThat is an insignificant part.
[...] Raw allows more room to correct errors, and play.
The raw sensor data is of course always processed to get an image. If it is done in the camera there are some unavoidable negative effects. One is that it cannot be done by inspection, but rather all adjustements (critical or otherwise) are set by pre-shutter release estimation of what will probably be close enough. A second major problem is that granularity for adjustments is large for any on camera adjustment compared to post processing. A third problem is the referenced "good conditions", because normally on camera processing can only be immediately validated by reviewing the result on camera, and when inspected later using more sophisticated hardware it is too late to change the camera configuration and reshoot.
The ultimate point should always be that "room to *correct* errors" is never the primary purpose of post processing, though one might well say that *avoiding* the creation of errors is.
The idea should always be to get it right in the camera. What should be "right" is that the best data for creating a photograph should be recorded. The RAW file records that, and no other format can.
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
03/13/2014-
-
-
