Blenheim Orange wrote:
Great description, thanks Bill. No disagreement with any of that.
For years I avoided working with raw files because people said they need to be processed; they are not really image files; they look flat until you bring them to life; it will take a lot of time and skill to process them; when you open them you are just seeing a JPEG, so why bother?
I found in my direct experience that none of that is true, and I regret listening to it. I made a commitment to myself that of I could help others to avoid making that mistake, I would.
Conceptualizing raw files as "negatives" that need "development" may be useful to some people, but I also know that it scares people away from experimenting with raw files who could benefit from working with raw files, and it is, after all, just an abstraction.
Mike
Great description, thanks Bill. No disagreement wi... (
show quote)
The "concept" is an intelligent comparison. RAW data has first to be developed, this will include adjusting WB and tone. It then needs converting to an Image File, so that PP can be carried out. In the latest software the transition from RAW data to an Image File is not always obvious, but you cannot edit RAW data directly.