mactrix Posted April 1, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted April 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I'm wonder if is really necessarily to shot raw and convert to B&W with Digilux 2. I have made a lot of experiments and I see that the results are very near to B&W camera's jpegs (at least a little curves adjust). I lost a lot of time to convert the raw files. I want to know what are your experiences in that line: B&W directly from camera or raw convert? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Sanchez Posted April 1, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted April 1, 2007 probably depends on what you eventually intend to do with the images. if you're planing on making 13x19 prints, i'd shoot raw, especially if you're shooting above 100 ISO. if you're just goiing to look at them on a computer screen, the jpgs will be ok. Â I recently sold my digilux 2 after about three years of faithful service. after brief, early experimenting with the raw-vs-jpg quandry, i found i prefered to shoot raw file exclusively & convert to BW in camera raw. Â there is so much more tweaking available in camera raw than photoshop. Â also, jpgs are notorious for loosing quality if they're opened &/or edited repeatedly. it's like shoving a suit into a small suitcase over and over. whenever i start with a jpg, i save it as a tiff or photoshop file if i intend to open it more than once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted April 1, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted April 1, 2007 If you want to shoot at ISO400, RAW is a lot better than JPEG. Â The MOMA shot in my post here: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/20265-do-digilux-2-photos-have-distinctive-4.html#post216267 was done that way. Â - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.