Oh dear, one more thing to fret about. :-)
I suppose I'll have to compare results of CS and the Can*n RAW
converter. I sure hope CS is as good or better, 'cause it's a lot more
convienient and faster.
That's a worry for another day. Today I'm back to scanning Portra 160NC
and a bit disappointed with the scanning job my local shop did. Usually
their scans can be used for modest prints, web images, etc. and I only
scan the more problematic or special ones myself. This time, however,
contrast and color balance are off far enough that I don't think I can
make them right on the 8 bit images without some trouble. Remember the
digital shots of the really white iris I posted. Their scans of the same
flower are a sort of odd light magenta. At least they scan up fine here....
Just scanned my TOPE shots a few minutes ago, OMPC and Zuikos.
Moose
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>After I got my D100 I kept reading the forum at dpreview.com and there
>was a lot of talk about the differences between raw conversion. I had
>PS CS and had been using it, but decided to try Nikon's Capture. Not a
>subtle difference. More shadow detail and vastly better skin tones. I
>have read discussions in other places too. Some manufacturers are
>generous with their code and others are not. Even if they are, the
>difference is this. Each DSLR gets tested for image quality after it
>is manufactured and a series of codes is put in the firmware.
>
I wonder if this is true for all of them, only Nik*n, or some subset.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|