PEF conversion

This isn't exactly so though because all RAW images do have to have a certain amount of processing to turn a monochrome chip covered by a Bayer mosaic into an approximation of a full colour image. Then of course this has to be converted into a recognisable format for Photoshop to deal with.

I'm guessing that in all these processes there is room for variation of quality of results.

Well, I think you are agreeing with me. The difference is not in what was recorded, but in how the converter processes it.

G

I thank you, with no less sincerity than your kindness.

The clue to the answer lies in the word "suspect". It is conjecture, not fact.[/quote]While I'm on a pedantic roll, I might suggest that the construction of your sentence implies that the 'suspecting' is that it's 'down to', not that it's a suspected fact.


That aside, who writes whatever it is that enables ACR to read PEF files?

Is it Adobe, based on a PEF specification from Pentax, or is it Pentax, who write a plug-in, according to a plug-in specification from Adobe?

Either way, if Adobe rendered PEFs in an inferior way, I can't help thinking that Pentax would have a moan at Adobe and/or make sure the Pentax community was aware of it.

Edit: Sorry, I see what you are getting at. You are saying that even a Raw image has to be processed in order to provide colour data.

While I'm on a pedantic roll, I might suggest that the construction of your sentence implies that the 'suspecting' is that it's 'down to', not that it's a suspected fact. [/quote]I was waiting for you to pick up on that.

Perhaps I should have written: "I suspect it's because...". Or: "Perhaps Adobe processes...."

It's almost certainly not Pentax. It's probably either Adobe themselves, or Dave Coffin.

G
Certificate of Conformity
The above post has been examined by the Board of Control for Apostrophes, and in the Board's view, all apostrophes have been accounted for correctly.