Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Nov 23, 2010 at 09:03 PM -0500, Tina Manley wrote: > I think if anything can be corrected at the RAW stage (the negative), it is > much better to do it there than at the tiff stage (the print). I agree a lot can be done in the RAW stage, and more and more every day. The tiff stage isn't a print though. I know it's convenient to think of it as such, but in many respects, it's no different than what you are doing in Lightroom. The real RAW 'development' is in figuring out the color from the Bayer array data. White balance is a corollary to that. As far as I know, all of the other things you can do in Lightroom/Aperture/etc. are not actually on RAW data; it's on the de-Bayered data. It's just stored in memory and not as a file. It certainly is nice that it's non-destructive, but as far as I know, there's no technical reason why you couldn't make a 'non-destructive' version of Photoshop that did all of the same things.