Prev: So this is what America has come to?
Next: Pentax filing small camera patents?
From: Pete on 19 Jun 2010 16:36
On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:

> On 6/19/2010 2:34 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>
>> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
>> Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
>> their raw converter.
>
> Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
> for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
> changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
> file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
> heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
>
> Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
>
> Doug McDonald

The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
images for decades). What gives?

--
Pete

From: Ofnuts on 19 Jun 2010 16:54
On 19/06/2010 21:34, Paul Furman wrote:

> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
> Adobe's.

Canon software is free, AFAIK.


--
Bertrand
From: Chris Malcolm on 19 Jun 2010 19:28
In rec.photo.digital RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
> is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
> to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
> optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
> available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
> know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
> aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
> if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.

If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
lcd.

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: RichA on 20 Jun 2010 01:15
On Jun 19, 7:28 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images.  That
> > is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
> > to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
> > optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
> > available to the raw images in any post-processing software.  I don't
> > know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
> > aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
> > if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.
>
> If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
> possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
> lcd.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
> Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.

They all do. The little 3" LCD image is hardly taxing to the average
12 megapixel camera.
From: Bruce on 20 Jun 2010 04:01
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:15:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 19, 7:28�pm, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
>> possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
>> lcd.
>
>They all do. The little 3" LCD image is hardly taxing to the average
>12 megapixel camera.


Whoosh!

That one went right past you .... ;-)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: So this is what America has come to?
Next: Pentax filing small camera patents?