Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 370886" data-attributes="member: 12496">Right.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some users of course apparently don't want to be bothered with getting it right.&nbsp; A few more seconds of work is just too much. Spending another hour on a couple of hundred varied pictures is simply unthinkable, no matter how good the result.&nbsp; Really, we could be watching some crap on TV or something.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; So we imagine we are done when we push the shutter button.&nbsp; They are just pictures, and the minimum requirement is good enough.&nbsp; &nbsp; Frankly, I think this apathy is mostly because they have not learned a clue about how to do it better.&nbsp; If they knew how good and easy and fast it was, they'd be all over Raw.&nbsp;&nbsp; Very many of us do know, and we are.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> We of course do want to make our pictures as good as possible, and the Raw rewards are high.&nbsp;&nbsp; Photography is my hobby, and I think it is the best hour we can spend&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> (on a couple of hundred pictures).&nbsp; The good result is much of the fun part.When shooting film slides, we of course very well knew it was not always possible to get it&nbsp; right in the camera.&nbsp; When shooting film negatives, we imagined we could get&nbsp; it right, but of course, only because the print processor guy was making it right for&nbsp; us.&nbsp; But in digital, we are that processor.&nbsp; It is good when someone gives it some attention.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />We can guess at the right settings in advance, but settings like white balance and even exposure are very vague and variable in precise degree - we have no way yet to know what is exactly &quot;right&quot;.&nbsp; But Raw allows addressing it after we can actually see it, to KNOW what gives the best result.&nbsp; It really all boils down to if we care enough to spend a few more seconds on our pictures, or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 370886, member: 12496"] Right. Some users of course apparently don't want to be bothered with getting it right. A few more seconds of work is just too much. Spending another hour on a couple of hundred varied pictures is simply unthinkable, no matter how good the result. Really, we could be watching some crap on TV or something. :) So we imagine we are done when we push the shutter button. They are just pictures, and the minimum requirement is good enough. Frankly, I think this apathy is mostly because they have not learned a clue about how to do it better. If they knew how good and easy and fast it was, they'd be all over Raw. Very many of us do know, and we are. :) We of course do want to make our pictures as good as possible, and the Raw rewards are high. Photography is my hobby, and I think it is the best hour we can spend :) (on a couple of hundred pictures). The good result is much of the fun part. When shooting film slides, we of course very well knew it was not always possible to get it right in the camera. When shooting film negatives, we imagined we could get it right, but of course, only because the print processor guy was making it right for us. But in digital, we are that processor. It is good when someone gives it some attention. :) We can guess at the right settings in advance, but settings like white balance and even exposure are very vague and variable in precise degree - we have no way yet to know what is exactly "right". But Raw allows addressing it after we can actually see it, to KNOW what gives the best result. It really all boils down to if we care enough to spend a few more seconds on our pictures, or not. [/QUOTE]

Verification