yes...but I wouldn't think it's better than RAW.
I wonder how much better RAW is. I use 16 bit TIFF Prophoto RGB and can't say I notice much difference when either processing the initial RAW or a TIFFed version in LR.
yes...but I wouldn't think it's better than RAW.
I wonder how much better RAW is. I use 16 bit TIFF Prophoto RGB and can't say I notice much difference when either processing the initial RAW or a TIFFed version in LR.
You might find this an interesting read. It's a Canon based conversation but I think you'll be able to extract the relevant information.I wonder how much better RAW is. I use 16 bit TIFF Prophoto RGB and can't say I notice much difference when either processing the initial RAW or a TIFFed version in LR.
You might find this an interesting read. It's a Canon based conversation but I think you'll be able to extract the relevant information...
....
To my understanding (!) this is correct.LR uses Prophoto which has more variation than a- or sRGB and I use that to save the TIFFs. Basically in LR, RAW or an uncompressed 16 bit PP-RGB, should make little difference since whatever the RAW initially was, it has been converted to the LR standard. At least that's what I assume.
I understand your sentiment.It seems to me that there are PP fanatics then there are photographers
It seems to me that there are PP fanatics then there are photographers
Indeed.Thinking about it; we photographers read fifty reviews and watch 20 videos deciding if or if not we're gonna buy that specific lens and then decide for the other because it scores 87 on sharpness when used at f/4 @155mm while the first only scored 82. And then we look at the post-processors and think; "Ha fanatics, you'd better be busy doing photography!"
That lens = PP.
I downloaded Gimp and it screwed up my computer big time. Took me 3 hrs to clean it up- beware!! Paul