aniramca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> It is my understanding that in any digital cameras, image processing
> is made inside the camera using the image sensor processing engine. In
> some advanced digital cameras, they let the users keep the unprocessed
> photos (RAW files), instead of the JPG files (which had been processed
> by the camera).
> My questions are as follows:
> - what is the extension file for RAW ? (like .jpg in jpeg files)
> Could this RAW files be viewed using any photo viewer software (as
> they are, i.e. without interference or retouching from the
> software?) . Or everytime you open the RAW files in a certain viewer
> (like picasa, PSP, PS, etc), it is automatically semi-processed by the
> software before they are shwon on the screen.
> - Do all or most available photo galleries in the websites contain
> photos which have been modified or re-touched? How do you identify
> gallery sites which contain photos that are NOT retouched? Are there
> such websites which only promote unretouched photos?
>
> If I want to see how the various cameras compare in producing its
> pictures, I consider the "inside" processing by the camera for the
> first time is considered as original pictures (one chance for the
> camera's processing engine to form the picture). However, I heard that
> some cameras now allow for re-touching while viewing in the camera. It
> is another manipulation addition, and I would not considered the
> manipulated photos as original. I would be interested to know if
> there is a way to find out that a JPEG file has been re-touched by a
> software (PSP, PS, etc), or even if it has been retouched inside the
> camera. Is there a way to find out?
>
> I saw incredible ****traiture photos in a number of the photo sharing
> websites, and they have colourful, sharp photos. The ones that I
> particularly like appeared to be taken using a D2X, D70 or D200. My
> question is again, whether any manipulations are done on the photos.
> Could someone show me similar kind of ****traiture photos taken using
> other brand name pro cameras (i.e. with similar rich colour and razor
> sharp images)?
>
> On similar line of thought, I also saw photos which are presented by
> camera reviewer websites - photos taken out of the box as part of the
> review of the camera. I assume these photos are nor manipulated (other
> than done inside the camera). Unfortunately, I can see that NONE have
> good, rich colour and sharpness that I like. Someone suggested that it
> is perhaps my computer monitor that needs adjustment. But, I am seeing
> the photos on the same computer. There are a contrasting difference
> between these photos and the one I saw at photo galleries.
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.
>
There is no one standard for the extension for a raw file.
There are some viewing programs that can view raw files, but anytime you
view a raw file there has to be some processing done. Most viewing
programs do a fairly poor job of converting the raw images.
There really is not such thing as an untouched image sitting inside the
camera, the choices of how much saturation, contrast and sharpness
always have to be made in order to view the image.
In reviews they tend to leave the camera on its default settings, which
will look a bit drab to many people, it is possible to ether adjust the
setting in the camera or to convert the raw image into something with
more contrast, saturation and sharpness.
Scott
|
