3/22/2023 0 Comments 8 bit photo converter![]() ![]() Look at the histogram immediately after converting from 8-bit into 16-bit per channel, and then look at the histogram after any tweak and then try to sell THAT fallacy to yourself!ĪNY adjustment, especially curves or exposure compensation results in w-a-y less posterization in 16-bits per channel than the same adjustments in 8-bit. do not convert to a 16 bit workspace as it is too much of a stretch for 256 tones to be spread out to 65,536. I'd love to see examples of images that ANYONE has that contradict that experience! Apparently also the experience of many others. Converting to TIFF is a good idea to prevent damage on subsequent saves. Converting the 8 bits to 16 before processing in an image editor will give smoother results than working with just 8. I presume you mean "trust your own experience" and ignore Ken Rockwell? ![]() Cognitive dissonance - when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. As Ansel Adams loved about sheet film, each RAW "negative" can be developed in it's own way, over and over, differently as out software and our skill set grows. Those of us used to revisiting our negatives over time should LOVE RAW since it not only allows us to revisit our negatives, but also allows us to RE-DEVELOP them, as it were, in a different solution. RAW IS FLEXIBLE: Unlike JPG, and more like en-developed film, I can go back in moments, or years, and re-develop my RAW for any reason. RAW IS QUICK: With RAW, I can do an immediate straight conversion to output using my favorite converter - for Windows is FREE, but many, many RAW converters abound - and do nothing but accept in-camera defaults, just like JPG but KEEPING a high-bit, un-lossy original. If Ken Rockwell shot Polaroids, I'd think he'd like JPG. Okay, I've printed JPG to 19x13" and I must say the PRINTER did a fantastic job. Perhaps an analogy best served is JPG = ISO 800 6x4" print, RAW = ISO 100 19x13" print? Still a horribly inaccurate and incomplete analogy, but close. I don't get the drive *down* to lowest possible DISTRIBUTION standards for digital CAPTURE?!? RAW is the most resources you can capture with your camera.ĭid ANYONE desire to capture less than possible with film CAPTURE - use only APS ISO 800 film?!? RAW, it seems, is for those who can't or who like to endlessly mess around with things instead of making more images. Bad.Īs I say, the problem with referring anyone to read Ken Rockwell is the lack of clarity as to when he's writing about his own experience, speculating, or merely provoking for effect. I've not spent much time looking at his pictures, so I can't say as much for his photography! Rather than explore things uninteresting to him, he dismisses them summarily, often with an insulting moniker. Ken Rockwell likes to provoke and does not hesitate to poke anyone in the eye. he keeps on writing nonetheless as if he were writing about the camera or his experience of it! But, since he has no experience of it, this part of his writing becomes messy and not so referential. He admits he's never seen one or used one, and since he already has his own DSLR gear, he's not even interested in the, but. Ken Rockwell keeps right on writing even though he has no experience of the topic he is writing about, like his post on. Ken Rockwell is a photographer, and when he writes about his own experience, I find it useful at least as a reference to compare to my own experience, and sometimes he gives voice to something I've yet to put into words. Here are the three elements to his writing that I find: I find three disparate elements in his writing, although I find he mixes them all together indiscriminately, and therein lies the rub, I find that people seldom sift the wheat from the chaff when referring to Ken Rockwell's writing. Ken Rockwell is a photographer, a photographer who also writes on the web for his own entertainment. To quote my own earlier response to Ken Rockwell from: "Īs he says himself, he's a photographer, not a writer, but he writes anyway! repeated readings of Ken Rockwell's site. Thanks, folks, for adding to my "Photo Fallacies" list! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |