<aniramca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1188825060.889667.65840@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Why would anyone not enhance (retouch) an image to improve it if it
were possible to do so.
|
