network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 5 months |
| seen | Jan 13 at 16:55 | |
| stats | profile views | 1 |
|
Jan 3 |
comment |
Are there reasons for using in-camera processing settings rather than adjusting in post? yes! i have PS Elements and you have to edit the raw file in a rinky external tool and it takes forever. As a hobbyist, i just shoot jpeg only now. if I was professional would certainly at least turn on raw as a backup. |
|
Jan 3 |
comment |
Are there reasons for using in-camera processing settings rather than adjusting in post? Ah...yes thank you...this is what I was asking. I can see the instant feedback point. But the screen is basically a thumbnail unless you zoom and scroll. I have done this to check focus and I suppose you could to get a feel for tone, etc too. |
|
Jan 3 |
revised |
Are there reasons for using in-camera processing settings rather than adjusting in post? added 479 characters in body |
|
Jan 3 |
comment |
Are there reasons for using in-camera processing settings rather than adjusting in post? Yes, exactly however my question was if the camera does the processing before it writes the Jpeg. Jpeg is always lossy, meaning if there are blocks of threshold of similar tone and color, they are averaged and compressed to be the same tone and color in the file which results in a smaller faster file and unfortunately, you can never return to the original level of detail. Thus the main reason for RAW. If the camera does noise reduction on board against the original data stream, it theoretically should be better than doing so on JPEG on a computer later. |
|
Jan 3 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Dec 27 |
awarded | Student |
|
Dec 27 |
asked | Are there reasons for using in-camera processing settings rather than adjusting in post? |
