Page 2 of 2
Re: RAW Advice
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:43 pm
by David Kilpatrick
Check your installation, and clear the RAW Cache.
David
Re: RAW Advice
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:34 am
by stewartjs
Thanks David. Have checked installation and seems OK, but you've lost me with the RAW Cache!!!
Stewart
Re: RAW Advice
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:40 am
by David Kilpatrick
Preferences - Cache - Purge Cache
Re: RAW Advice
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:19 pm
by stewartjs
Thanks for the advice David. Having trouble locating the Cache - never was much good with computers! Will keep trying. At least I can now process my wife's A200 RAW files, which I couldn't before.
A550 seems to produce 2 identical files, both in ARW 2.1 (Compressed) format. Is that correct?
Stewart
Re: RAW Advice
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:47 am
by David Kilpatrick
Two files? No. Maybe one JPEG, one RAW. Or you downloaded twice in error.
You will find the cache where I said - not in Camera Raw preferences, but in Bridge preferences.
David
Re: Raw Advice
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:21 pm
by 01af
stewartjs wrote:I may just buy PSE 8 as there are plenty of half-price offers at the moment.
Plenty of half-price offers on an Adobe product usually is a strong indication that the successor version is lurking just around the corner.
On the other hand, Photoshop Elements 8 has been released ony eight months ago ...
Considering the original question---any raw converter will yield better results than in-camera JPEGs ... with the exception of Sony Image Data Converter. Still, in-camera JPEG files are more than good enough for most applications. I always shoot in Raw+JPEG mode so I have the in-camera JPEG for quick and convenient use and additionally the raw file in case something is less-than-perfect with the JPEG file.
-- Olaf
Re: Raw Advice
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:02 am
by UrsaMajor
01af wrote:Considering the original question---any raw converter will yield better results than in-camera JPEGs ... with the exception of Sony Image Data Converter. Still, in-camera JPEG files are more than good enough for most applications. I always shoot in Raw+JPEG mode so I have the in-camera JPEG for quick and convenient use and additionally the raw file in case something is less-than-perfect with the JPEG file.
I agree completely with this philosophy, and for the reasons given. This is especially true now that the cost of storage has become quite low and there is no longer a real economic incentive to minimize the space per image.
I've just been through the process of evaluating about 650 images that I took last weekend as the volunteer photographer for a Concours/Car Show that raised about $60,000 for the local Children's Library. I found that the camera's JPEG files were quite acceptable for the vast majority of the images, with little or no additional work required.
However, there were some images that required significant post-processing, primarily where there was extreme contrast between areas in direct sun and areas in the shade of trees. In those cases, the availability of the RAW files was a real help in producing acceptable images.
With best wishes,
- Tom -