In the camera club I belong to we have a wild life photographer who declares he never uses RAW. His images of butterfly's are stunning and far better than any I take. So this poses a question.
Does the cameras conversion into Jpeg do a better job than one can do manually?
Back in the days of film certain makes were know for they effect on the finished result specially with they colour rendering but I don't here talk of a Canon colour or a Nikon contrast as most higher range cameras are used in RAW so it really does not matter how the camera would handle it we take over. I nearly always seem to have to lift the colour temperature and setting like cloudy, tungsten or florescent are really pointless when taking in RAW. Or are they?
Both my Pentax and my Nikon will produce Jpeg images from the RAW file post exposure so I see no point in the RAW+Jpeg option it just increases the memory used with each exposure and slows the camera down. However in view of this guys stunning photos I wonder if Adobe conversion is the way forward or if the cameras computer does a better job?
Thoughts please.
Bookmarks