[Leica] Breakfast - I figured it out!!

[nathan at nathanfoto.com (Nathan Wajsman)]

Hi Ted,

What you say is correct if the exposure and colour balance etc. are more 
or less right when you take the shot. But if you need to do some 
corrections, or decide to convert to B&W, then you are much better off 
shooting RAW. Think about it this way: when you shoot JPEG, you are 
letting the camera determine colour balance, sharpness and many other 
things. Most of the time it works well, but when it does not, then you 
will find that because shooting JPEG means throwing information away 
while the image is still in the camera, fixing the image is a lot harder.

You are right that working with digital images (whether scanned film or 
digitally captured) involves a new set of skills and things to learn, 
but it does not have to be overwhelming. After all, back when you first 
started, you also had to learn to process film, deal with the chemicals 
etc. My own Photoshop knowledge is limited to what I need to know, which 
is not very much, since I only make modest adjustments to my images, 
mostly just duplicating the kind of adjustments one would make in a wet 
darkroom.

Nathan

Ted Grant wrote:
>
> Now dear lady a simple question.
>
> Let's say you had shot this material JPEG and just down loaded 
> straight to computer, clicked on auto everything, levels etc., (well I 
> still don't have a clue about RAW, so be it) and I realize there are 
> advantages if one does. But that still entails a bunch of extra work 
> on the original work as I understand.

-- 
Nathan Wajsman
Almere, The Netherlands

SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUY DANISH PRODUCTS!

General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com

Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507
Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com

Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog