Reader Graydon, in the comments yesterday:
How the camera interacts with the raw converter and other software you're already used to matters, and it is, up to a point, an issue with the camera design. A camera with utterly splendid image characteristics so long as it is only used with the proprietary converter shipped with it is a different camera from one with equivalently splendid image characteristics when used with any old image converter. (Presumably the makers of the second camera are much more open with their raw image specifications.) So I think Mike is right to test cameras with whatever raw converter he is in the existing habit of using; where the camera is on the spectrum between 'works only with the proprietary software' and 'works with anything' is an important thing to know. Since the converter he's using is the one with the lion's share of the market, especially so.
Graydon has an excellent point, but it does bring up an issue for reviewers (and, for readers, an issue with reading reviews): how much are we reviewers justified in only using a test camera like we usually use cameras?
My habitual stance is that I can only use test cameras like I normally use my own, and then report on that. For instance, I don't use flash. I have a vague idea that people tend to like Nikon's flash implementation better than Canon's, but beyond that I have no idea which camera is better for flash users. So, when I "test" (I prefer the word "try") a camera, how much obligation do I have to check out and report on the flash functions?
Ideally, a "real" (i.e. complete, publishable) review would speak to all the ways everyone uses a camera, including flash. But that brings up another problem with reviews: to what extent do you want a reviewer to be "faking it" when he pontificates on a specific topic? What I mean is, I never use on-camera flash with any camera, therefore I have neither a "deep" knowledge of the technical and operation issues involved with on-camera flash nor a breadth of experience with different flash systems and implementations. I don't have well-formed opinions about flash. So which would you prefer: would you like me to take a dozen pictures with the flash on and bullshit my way through a couple of paragraphs about how it works, or would you rather just have me tell you up front that I don't know anything about flash and leave it at that?
My preference, as a review reader, is for the latter. What it tells me is just that I need to go somewhere else for the missing information, that's all. That strikes me as both honest and reasonable. If you read one of my reviews and then assume you'd better head over to Strobist for David Hobby's views on a camera's flash functionality, what's wrong with that? David's forgotten more than I ever knew about in-camera and on-camera flash. Who would you rather listen to on that score? I'd rather listen to David, myself.
Festive House, Canon 5D Mark II and 35mm ƒ/1.4L, ISO 3200, flash off
Iridient, nacreous, shimmering, glittering, sparkling
What I'd probably do if I took the issue of raw converters seriously would be to maybe pick three and quietly begin using them. I'd wait until I had gained some experience with them all, till I felt I had a solid handle on their similarities and differences and how they worked in a variety of situations, and then I'd begin introducing them into my reviews.
Here's what I wouldn't do: I wouldn't use ACR with everything, all the time, and then publish a review of a specific camera C, and then have people complain that C works a lot better with raw converter XYZ, and then go download a copy of XYZ and try it (only with C files) and then start talking about it like I knew what I was talking about. That's disreputable, in my view.
And, as several people have pointed out in the comments, it gives rise to another problem, which is that you can never please everybody anyway, and successive layers of technical niceties only give rise to further levels of complaint. That is, if I were to write a review which said, in effect, "I did all my tests with ACR but anecdotal evidence on the forums suggested that XYZ is better, so I tried that," then I'd get 19 people expounding about what an idiot Johnston is because doesn't he understand that XYZ is a flibbertegibbet app and he needs to use a whapdoodle app such as the raw converter LMNO; at which point the conversation explodes into a flibbertegibbet vs. whapdoodle controversy, with XYZ vs. LMNO overtones.
Believe me, I know. I've been doing this for a while.*
And even then we haven't really gotten anywhere. Because even if I try the C with LMNO, there will be a guy somewhere who has devoted his free time for a year to comparing all the raw converters extant with C cameras, and he'll be absolutely convinced that the best way to convert raw files is to start with C's bundled coverter, save to RIFF, apply the Magic Dust plugin, spin around three times, open the image in Picture Whizz and shout at the monitor, then use his proprietary Action sharpening filters which he will sell you for $9.
What's the solution? Honesty, folks, just honesty. I've reviewed a lot of lenses over the years, for instance, but I'm almost always careful to remind people that for my own work I've always used lenses between 28mm (or equivalent) and 90mm (or equivalent), with 24mm and 105mm (and equivalent) outliers. Within those boundaries I have a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge. So if you come across me writing about a 12mm or a 400mm, you should realize that I don't have a deep basis of comparison. Because I don't use those focal lengths. And how will you know? Because I'll tell you. Simple honesty can overcome any deficiency. Just don't pretend you know more than you know and you'll be fine. That's my turtle-shell, and I'm stayin' in here.
The bottom line: I use ACR and Photoshop. If a camera doesn't perform well with those tools, then it won't perform well for me. It's not the end of the world. The internet is broad and wide, and there are other people out there also writing about the same cameras I write about—or so I hear.
(On the other hand, after some on-the-fly online research, I have just downloaded a trial version of Raw Developer 1.8.2 from Iridient Digital. So in the future you might or might not be reading a comparison between that and ACR. I'd promise to work on it, but, as I'm fond of saying, I have enough things to promise to work on.)
_______________________
Mike
*The 19 people in question would all be veterans of the flibbertegibbet vs. whapdoodle flames on various forums, so they'd be properly radicalized and polarized on the issue, and all their arguments would be fully developed and, probably, long. I call these "imported arguments" when they show up in our comments section, where I usually cheerfully zap them. As with many such blogosphere-related issues, I've developed a sixth sense for knowing what I'm looking at when I see something like this.
Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "Just to slightly garnish the dish you've already cooked...I, too, am very much of the mindset that if a camera's files can't be well-processed by Lightroom/Photoshop/ACR (my main platform) it's not my problem.
"During a period of idle curiosity and insecurity a cople of years ago I ended up licensing and testing a basket-full of these independent raw converters (examples: Capture One, Raw Developer, Bibble, LighZone, et al.). I—really—wanted to find advantages over ACR (of that day) that could consistently justify using these products. But while I could find some occasional benefits on certain types of image files I could find nothing that would warrant the inconvenience of permanently implanting any of these products into my processing and cataloging flow.
"I would reach that same conclusion today, perhaps more than ever. Adobe's Camera Raw facility, both as an extension to CS4 and as part of Lightroom, can be adapted to painlessly custom-process raw files from specific cameras through its new profiling facility. But more significantly it has been given the tweak-tools with which one can achieve virtually any result desired. Blaming ACR for conversion disappointment is very, very hard to support today.
"Of course there are, and will continue to be, enthusiasts who swear that some other raw converter is giving them results 'far superior' to ACR. Rather than pointlessly argue with them I simply tip my hat and wish them well. If they've found a digital elixir that they believe makes their images sing sweeter, more power to them. Perhaps they have. But from my seat, perhaps a seat shared by the majority, Adobe has produced stunning gains in its raw image processing facilities over the past years. (I've actually begun re-processing some of old raw images with the newer ACR to great advantage.) That's why it's my horse and I'm continuing to ride 'im!"
Featured Comment by Dale Moreau: "Okay, I was willing to let it go, but since you brought it back up...I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect that a manufacturer's raw converter would provide results that are superior to a 'generic' application. I would think that it would be very reasonable that a specific camera's dedicated software designed by the same team that designed the in camera processing would be able to optimize that same data to output.
"With that said, an argument between generic converters is futile and, of course, simply sticking to the one that serves your workflow is consistent with what one would expect any professional to do. So when one is 'trying' cameras and not suggesting a bench test outcome but simply providing personal observations that suit one's personal style, I see no reason to introduce unnecessary complexity into an otherwise very enjoyable review."
Featured Comment by Robert Noble: "We old-timers can't help but think of the age-old arguments about how photos should be processed. The technical words used in the discussions may have changed, but the tenor of the arguments has not.
"See, for example, this 1999 thread from photo.net on processing photos or this 1999 thread from the LF.info site. (I would quote similar debates from the 1940s and 1950s, but they're not online!)
"SUMMARY: There seem to be two main camps when it comes to processing photos: Those who seem to enjoy the never-ending quest for the magic formula (and who champion the superiority of whatever method they've decided on for now) vs. those who say 'It's not a big deal. Just pick a reasonable, mainstream solution and go with it, learning its limitations and capabilities and changing it only if you're convinced it's lacking.'
"In a sense, both camps play an important role (promoting innovation vs. keeping perspective, respectively). Which philosophy is right for each photographer is a matter of personal disposition."
"Did you have the sod-buster saga ready and waiting for a comment to justify using it?"
Nope, just wrote it on the spot. Although I had recently been talking to (i.e., lecturing) my son on common tropes and mannerisms in films--in that case the very common device (in everything from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" to "Road to Perdition") of justifying a movie about a homicidal rampage with the setup of the wanton murder of the protagonist's innocent, idyllic family. So it was sort of on my mind, I guess.
Plus, as T.V.'s Craig Ferguson says, made myself laugh and that's half the battle.
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike J. | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 12:56 PM
I've been trying out RawDeveloper since I upgraded my computer. So far I like it and find it's more or less intuitive and straight-forward to use. Same sort of controls and approach as ACR. Quite fast on my fast Mac. Strictly a raw processor, no additional capabilities. So it's not a complete solution, and of course until you fork over the bucks, you get the charming watermark. And the designer is, I think, justified in doing something along these lines to protect himself from being ripped off.
Posted by: Dennis Allshouse | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 12:56 PM
"… I have just downloaded a trial version of Raw Developer 1.8.2 from Iridient Digital."
So did I today - what a coincidence!
I worked on two pictures, a 5D RAW and a GRD II DNG.
The converter is fast like a race car (on a PB G4), and the results seem very appealing.
But you're right - to compare cameras/lenses you have to work always with the same converter.
And ACR is widely spread and something like a standard in image processing.
Posted by: Martin | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 12:56 PM
Mike,
I think you'll find that the renderings from Raw Developer are superior to ANYTHING I've seen on all of my cameras, period. Top notch!
It has decent batch processing and it's become my RAW vehicle for pretty much everything except huge numbers of images. Excellent piece of software and puts ACR to shame. I also find that the included sharpening is excellent.
I'm confident that you'll be pleased and that you'll notice the difference immediately. the first time I processed a file with it I smiled the big smile.
Posted by: David | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 12:56 PM
On anticipating comments; Did you have the sod-buster saga ready and waiting for a comment to justify using it?
Seems that the vast majority is quite happy with your system, myself included.
Posted by: Clayton Lofgren | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 12:56 PM
An excellent post, Mike and one worthy of some reflection.
I think, due to the nature of reviewing unfortunately, one will always be dealing with the types of responses you're describing here. The marque-fans will always respond this way when one reviewer's observations are not as rosy-colored as they may like.
I ran into a similar situation about a year ago at this time on the Canon Digital Photography forums, where I intimated that the Canon 40D might have the same AF problems that the 1D MkIII had due to sharing a similar (and, IMHO, flawed) AF system design, and was immediately castigated as a "troll", as a pro-Nikon flamer posting mis-information, etc, when I was merely pointing a to a link of a review on Imaging Resource that had documented the AF problems with this camera. The irony was that I had an email from Rob Galbraith completely supporting the Imaging Resource review, not to mention that I probably owned and used on a regular basis more Canon equipment than the majority of them, but nevertheless, I was being figuratively tarred and feathered as an "anti-Canonite" (with appropriate homage to Seinfeld's "anti-dentite" episode).
In one of the motorcycling forums I hang out on, a number of current-generation Honda VFR owners took me to task for relaying FACTS that my Honda dealer provided me about how the current-generation VFR sales plummeted five-fold when their particular model came out. Somehow, they got it twisted around that because the current model didn't sell as well as the previous model, they must be a less of a person for buying it. What the f???
Unfortunately, such is the nature of this line of work. I will mention, however, that pros don't get caught up in all of this. Cameras are tools be used for a completing a job, and as such, they will use whatever tool allows them to best accomplish that job, be it an A900, a 5D MkII, a D700 or a plastic Holga.
Just keep fighting the good fight. Your "real world" reviews mean more than any table of spec sheets or plots of noise performance.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 12:56 PM
'Twas ever thus. Back in the film days, there were plenty of arguments over what film, developer, temperature, processing time, frequency and style of agitation, print paper, etc., etc. you should use if you were REALLY SERIOUS. It's mostly us guys who get into this minutia, of course. The ladies just roll their eyes and get on with it.
Posted by: Gordon Lewis | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:28 PM
I also tried Lightzone once. It was a pain, due my relatively old (single core!) notebook. Without Lightroom I would have been forced since long to upgrade my hardware. This speaks a lot about Adobe and performance I guess.
With Pentax Photo Lab I (believe to) see a slight advantage on high ISO raw files from the K20D. So what? Use Photo Lab instead of Lightroom, ha!
Finally I think that a camera has to work with Lightroom, period. You know, I am not a friend of monopols, and surely not companies like Adobe in general, and if there would be some open source tool that lets me organize and process my photos as fast and conveniently as Lightroom does, I would jump ship immediately, but this is not the case...
Posted by: Andreas | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:28 PM
Stephen,
In what way are the AF systems of the 40D and 1DM3 even remotely related, besides both being from Canon?
AFAIK, they share no AF hardware whatsoever.
Posted by: Other MJ | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:28 PM
I use Apple Aperture, so I have to wait a month or two after a camera comes out to see how it will perform.
Only one time did I buy a camera before Apple could process its RAW files -- an E420. I ended up returning the E420 before Apple could process it, but that was mostly because it was just too difficult to hold.
What is really troubling is that companies like Panasonic are starting to incorporate lens correction into their in-camera JPEG and in their computer based RAW converters. Then I have to wonder -- how big a difference will there be when that is (if ever) processed by Aperture? Will I be able to disable the correction? Adjust it? To me, Panasonic is cheating here -- failing to create a decent lens and relying on software to fake it. It should be slammed it its reviews for doing so, in my opinion.
Posted by: Other MJ | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:28 PM
I'm reminded of the fact that the trumpet I played during school could produce beautiful music as long as it didn't have to tackle really high notes and the tempo didn't get out of hand. I guess the 5D solution would have been to give up Jazz for Baroque pieces.
Posted by: B Grace | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:28 PM
*Laughing* at the monitor here! Thanks, Mike!
Posted by: Simon Griffee | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:28 PM
Didn't want to lower the tone of the blog too much - but I couldn't help smiling at some of the comments :-)
-------------
1. Are you guys using single malt when processing RAW files, or is plain old distilled ok?
2. Should I manufacture my own *chemistry* or will over the counter do just fine?
3. Do you find constant agitation beneficial?
4. What type of enlarger should I use - is youporn really best?
5. Is the modern moist paper really better or will it chap?
Ok - JUST KIDDING!
I remember these debates from the old film days! Just made me smile. What goes around comes around and all that :-)
Posted by: Chris Gibbs | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 03:33 PM
Mike, keep doing what you've been doing. As for everyone else --Enough of the my dog is bigger than your dog. Use what works best for you.
Posted by: Tom Siefken | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 05:36 PM
Back in the "good old days" there were camera and reviews, film reviews and processing comparisons. These days it appears all three components now have to be handled in the single review - not an easy task!
Posted by: Kelvin L | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 06:38 PM
processing everything w/ one raw converter is like taking pictures of everything w/ 18-250 turismo-zoom.
Posted by: deejjjaaaa | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 06:44 PM
True enough, I never got past D-76 and Dektol.
Although Accufine was an awful temptation....
dale
Posted by: Dale Moreau | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 06:45 PM
I think "everyone" makes too big a deal out of shooting "RAW."
I still use JPEGs. If I switched to RAW I'd have to buy a new computer, and learn all kinds of new computer stuff that I don't really want to know about.
After shooting Kodachrome I, II, and 25 for 40+ years, and printing on everyting from Printon to Dye Transfer to Cibachrome, I have yet to come across a situation which really requires RAW (instead of just the occasional bracketing).
Posted by: Wilhelm | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 07:06 PM
What a wonderful post. It's very refreshing to read a review and know what equipment the reviewer use and how he uses it. It makes a huge difference to the weight of the review compared to a generic review of the web site.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Erez | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 08:54 PM
Hi Mike,
I'm currently using an M8 and GR Digital, and my interest in DSLRs right now doesn't extend beyond simple materialism, but posts referring to your three-way review keep popping up in my RSS feed, so I took a few minutes to try and bring myself up to speed on this whole debacle.
First, I think you're absolutely right when it comes to discussing the plus and minuses of a camera (or any sort of product for that matter) from one's personal perspective. It allows an article (in this case) to express the expertise (or oftentimes lack thereof) and opinions of the writer.
A friend of mine who reviews video games once told me that it's important to definitively express your opinion in a manner that people on forums can either agree or disagree with. He didn't say why, but I assumed it was because it allowed people to confidently know what they're agreeing or disagreeing with.
When I was shopping around for my first DSLR a few years ago, sites like DPR were of absolutely no help. I actually bought my D70s based on the recommendation of a friend and Ken Rockwell's review of the camera. I recall the gist of his review praising Nikon's ergonomics, peppered with a now-STFU-and-go-take-pictures attitude.
I think Ken is a bit of a loudmouth, but at the end of the day, the review was helpful because he expressed what he honestly felt about the camera, and if I was in the market for one of the three DSLRs you reviewed, your article would definitely be an asset, as the M8 pro-con reviews were.
Posted by: Nolan Sinclair | Saturday, 20 December 2008 at 09:02 PM
Wilhelm --
I don't do this much, but being able to process the same raw image for two different exposures and combine the results is very useful for things like taking pictures of people under the colonnade of a train station; I can get detail in both the bright and dark areas. Not of interest if you don't want to tackle learning a raw converter, but not a situation bracketing will work for. (Not unless the people are holding very, very still, anyway. :)
I think the great thing about raw converters is that software is basically pretty cheap; no vats of chemicals, no dedicated space, no merciless physical process with no undo key are almost side benefits compared to the amount of breadth and selectivity that can be built into the converter capabilities.
This probably makes me undisciplined in some photographically important ways (I am quite sure that if I was shooting film I'd have to care a lot more about getting exposure precisely correct than I do with digital), but it also gets the time and effort cost of the hobby way down, which I think is a good thing.
Posted by: Graydon | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 12:13 AM
I'm sad that you felt the need to respond to someone's assertions that "conversion program X works best with camera A". Isn't it incumbent upon the one making the assertion to demonstrate the validity of the assertion?
I hear these types of arguments all the time on various review sites but no one seems to pony up and demonstrate in a conclusive manner the critical nature of selecting a particular conversion program. I have little doubt that one conversion program can be better than another in terms of enhancing some quality of the image, but is it enough to see in a real application of the image? For professionals, would a client be able to see the difference? Is it a "real" difference or is it possible that knowing the software better would allow one to get equal results from all programs?
Ironically, I do feel the need for multiple conversion programs and see the "value" for my own use. But this is because a) I am not a professional and can't work the settings in any one program sufficiently to get the look and feel that I want for differing situations...and b) I'm lazy.
For my camera, I use the manufacturer supplied software for "people" photos because it has a preset that produces the "look" that I like in human skin color/tone. I use a third party solution for most landscape/object photography because it has an easy slider interface that allows me to get something pleasing with minimum of effort.
Posted by: Jeff Hartge | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 12:52 AM
Jeez, another Panasonic is cheating comment. Because they made an f/2.0 24mm lens/camera system (yes including software) at a reasonable cost THAT TAKES BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPHS. Isn't that the complete antithesis of the point that Mike has been trying to make.
Posted by: Dave Kee | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 01:28 AM
People who crib about ACR/Lightroom not being good either have crappy lighting or crappy lenses. So they keep moving from one raw converter to another, trying to eek out that last 0.x% of picture quality, in stead of improving their technique or their gear. I know it 'cause I was there once :-)
Posted by: Manish | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 01:29 AM
Meanwhile I think that Panasonic did it right, but they (and ACR) should provide a checkbox to disable lens correction.
Posted by: Andreas | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 02:41 PM
"I think "everyone" makes too big a deal out of shooting "RAW.""
Me, I think "everyone" uses too-big letters for the word "raw". It's just a word, folks. The three letters stand for the shapes you make with your mouth, not for other words. Raw data, just like raw meat and raw eggs, means uncooked data, straight from the source.
(With apologies to all those whose best language is not English.)
Posted by: improbable | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 02:41 PM
Mike,
this torrent of comments about your assessment of the holy trinity (A900, 5D2, D700) is just hilarious!
You're spot on regarding use of Photoshop + ACR. That's what you should use because it's what you're comfortable using, just like me.
I have an A900 and use the infamous ACR to process its images and heck, I like what I get.
ACR at this point is probably not the best converter out there for any camera, but it's something that many people (you and me -- we have two examples already) use almost exclusively, because workflow is king.
Finally, great job on your assessments, I think they're awesomely spot-on and pretty much mirror my findings.
Oh, and before I forget, that's a cool 5D2 shot! :-)
-- thiago
Posted by: Thiago Sigrist | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 02:41 PM
Please do not get too carried away with citing Adobes products as some imaginary benchmark or the best digital solution, or we may find camera manufacturers, (may they strive to be fiercely independent) becoming platforms for Adobe. (A personal hurray for Nikons Capture NX -the robbing sods- boo for selling their U-point technology, what were they thinking ?) Don't get me wrong, I have no axe to grind except for the furvent desire not too see homogenity (right spelling ?) of 'solutions' and platforms and design. It doesn't bode well for us all to be clicking away to Adobes tune (I tell you, you may not be so effusive if paying European prices for their excellent products). So support the alternatives, play around with your 'crappy lenses' (unbelievable) and converter combinations and don't let any p***k tell you you're wasting your time.
Posted by: Mark Walker | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 02:41 PM
Reminds me of when I did color prints working at a pro lab, we had a big Pako processor so everything was processed the same, all the changes had to be done on the printer, I carried the same procedure home to my B&W printing, always developed the prints the same and did all the magic on the enlarger.
Worked for me and I was very happy with the results.
A friend was the complete opposite he would change the exposure, change the development times, got good prints, although it usually took him more paper, we stopped working in the darkroom together because we drove each other nuts.
Posted by: Hudson | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 02:42 PM
Some people liked the look of Velvia, others liked the look of Kodachrome. Some prefer Portra 160NC others Fuji 160S. Every RAW converter has its own visual flavor. Why wouldn't a photographer prefer one over the other? ACR is really good for many cameras, not so good for others. Compared to, say, Capture One, the look between converted files can be as different as 160NC vs, 160S or Velvia vs. Kodachrome. The underlying profiles are completely different.
What I'm most disappointed in is Mike not reviewing the ergonomics and controls of the cameras. Everybody and their dogs are reviewing these cameras for the same IQ, Noise and feature counts. I REALLY respect Mike's opinion about usability issues (which he did dwell on in regards to high-ISO--no argument there). One of these three cameras I found EXTREMELY difficult to use because of some basic grip and control locations. Only one of the three cameras did I feel have that "decisive moment" design intent. Which of the cameras did you really WANT to shoot?
Mike, your opinions on the intangibles matter. I've learned through the years that our preferences are actually pretty close when it comes to the intangible qualities between cameras. I too, found the KM D7D to be a "photographer's camera", and I still use the OM system for all my film needs.
Maybe the intangibles really no longer matter as the buying public has shifted beyond usability issues and are 100% focused on the tangibles. If this is the case, then the only review of importance is the one from DPREVIEW where the image quality between models is quantified, measured, sliced and diced for all to see. I honestly don't see you competing with DPREVIEW in this matter.
So Mike, tell us what you REALLY think about these cameras. :)
Posted by: Ken N | Sunday, 21 December 2008 at 06:13 PM
My old pc was already struggling to run Lightroom and CS3. It's now capitulated under the strain of trying to process the files from my 1ds mark lll, prompting me to buy a more powerful pc. Who says digital is cheaper?
You're spot on about using a camera/software in the way that you do. I will admit that the purchase of my new camera my very well be overkill. But I'm not about to go in to a studio etc. I'm going to make it fit me, I'm not going to have the tail wagging the dog.
Posted by: Sean | Monday, 22 December 2008 at 12:45 AM
Funny thing, just today I wanted to develop some RAW in my office, where I don't have Lightroom (my developer of choice). I've downloaded RawTherapee and SilkyPix, but after a while I just gave up. I couldn't get decent outputs, simply because I didn't know how to use the software. I think mastering a RAW converter is about 30% of the whole picture making nowadays.
Posted by: Thiago Silva | Monday, 22 December 2008 at 04:08 PM