tried RAW -- it's rubbish !
Posted 19/03/2014 - 09:52 - Helpful Comment
Link
All this is far too technical - geeky even - for me. In simple terms I regard the RAW image as I would the negative in film days. After making a JPEG, which is a copy, the RAW is then filed away, unaltered. It can subsequently be accessed again and again to make further copies for different treatments of the image without it ever losing any of its original information. That's really all the OP needs to consider.
David
David
Posted 19/03/2014 - 10:01
Link
Proof positive that RAW files can be viewed without conversion to Jpeg or Tiff.
It's clearly one of my best photographs, don't you agree? (100% clip)
The photograph I took this from contains approx 1,000 screen pages of this, so I guess we're just having a semantic discussion.
Actually strictly speaking this is a jpeg of a raw of raw photographic data if you get my drift
It's clearly one of my best photographs, don't you agree? (100% clip)
The photograph I took this from contains approx 1,000 screen pages of this, so I guess we're just having a semantic discussion.
Actually strictly speaking this is a jpeg of a raw of raw photographic data if you get my drift
Posted 19/03/2014 - 10:07
Link
Oh my word.... Perry Mason..... jeff..
Posted 19/03/2014 - 10:08
Link
Yes, there is a NOISE problem.
I did try to colour things up a bit, but it seems everything is black or white?
I did try to colour things up a bit, but it seems everything is black or white?
Posted 19/03/2014 - 10:11
Link
ronniemac wrote:
Proof positive that RAW files can be viewed without conversion to Jpeg or Tiff.
It's clearly one of my best photographs, don't you agree? (100% clip)
The photograph I took this from contains approx 1,000 screen pages of this, so I guess we're just having a semantic discussion.
Actually strictly speaking this is a jpeg of a raw of raw photographic data if you get my drift
A. Your sensor needs cleaning Proof positive that RAW files can be viewed without conversion to Jpeg or Tiff.
It's clearly one of my best photographs, don't you agree? (100% clip)
The photograph I took this from contains approx 1,000 screen pages of this, so I guess we're just having a semantic discussion.
Actually strictly speaking this is a jpeg of a raw of raw photographic data if you get my drift
B. 100% Croc ?
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 19/03/2014 - 11:06
Link
I rather like it
Look good as a canvas, what's the resolution?
Look good as a canvas, what's the resolution?
Posted 19/03/2014 - 11:42
Link
You have inspired my creativity there. If that is actually a proper readout of a RAW file, if it were a portrait I could see that blended with the actual image in some way.
If you want to show us how to do that, please start a new thread.
If you want to show us how to do that, please start a new thread.
Best regards, John
Posted 19/03/2014 - 12:10
Link
johnriley wrote:
You have inspired my creativity there. If that is actually a proper readout of a RAW file, if it were a portrait I could see that blended with the actual image in some way.
If you want to show us how to do that, please start a new thread.
Steady John, sounds a bit like Art breaking out!
You have inspired my creativity there. If that is actually a proper readout of a RAW file, if it were a portrait I could see that blended with the actual image in some way.
If you want to show us how to do that, please start a new thread.
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 19/03/2014 - 12:54
Link
Posted 19/03/2014 - 13:07
Link
I see the classic mistake you've made RonnieMac - you haven't run it through a spellchecker - that would sharpen it up nicely
LennyBloke
Posted 19/03/2014 - 15:29
Link
Got too technical -- I showed this to a Brentwood Photo-Club member and he couldn't understand it either !! Oh well, back to the darkroom and something we know about ---- FP4+ in ID11 rules --
Been a member of Pentax Club since the Ron Spillman era! Got COMPUTERISED at last - DIGITISED?
Taken the PLUNGE - BUT FILM STILL RULES !!!
Taken the PLUNGE - BUT FILM STILL RULES !!!
Posted 19/03/2014 - 20:09
Link
ASCII art is pretty cool.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
24424 posts
24 years
Tyldesley,
Manchester
Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial seems like a good phrase, if only because of which old TV series I'm currently working through and I've always wanted to say that.
In other words, back to the point please.