They may not be viewalbe on all equipment and the take up a lot of storage.
Still, if you re-edit a PSD or TIF, you should still have most, if not all, of your original latitude. They keep all the visual data but do not keep the editing steps. No, the format is not as universal (yet) as one would like but it sure beats the Canon, Nikon and all the other proprietary RAW formats which change constantly and from camera to camera even in the same brand.ĥ) PSDs (or TIFs) are great for saving “flattened” copies of your work. If you shoot, or have access to, silver-based negatives that you are scanning, scan them as TIFs and then edit them as RAW.Ĥ) I convert all my Nikon RAW files to DNG to save them. It is uncompressed and essentially a RAW format. You can still do it in JPEG to pretty good effect though but why?ģ) TIF is common to most scanners. Converta mútiplas fotografias RAW da sua câmara para formato JPG online. In a RAW editor, you are also allowed to keep all that hidden data (that is not viewable on screen) should you change your mind.Ģ) Since the whole point of HDR is to extend the latitude of your photos beyond that of your camera sensor, you defeat your purpose, to some degree, by using JPEG. Transforme imagens CR2, RW2, NEF, ARW, SR2, ORF, PEF, RAF ou RAW para JPG. The advantage of RAW is that it allows YOU to choose the data you want to keep and what you want to hide. Thinking only of image latitude, a rendition of a RAW photo, “unprocessed” would include viable shadings from the very darkest recorded to the very lightest recorded and somehow would represent those on your monitor.
Any rendition of a RAW file is, somehow or other, processed to look more like a JPEG. Still take with a grain of salt.ġ) It really is impossible to compare what a RAW image “looks like” with a JPEG. 1a) I am an armature and am no “expert” but I believe the below is accurate.
0 kommentar(er)
