Compare to edit 1? The difference is quite subtle (didn't need a huge amount), but I think it's an improvement. NS's feedback welcome too.
Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What is your objection (in reality, not in theory) to edit 1? It could be reprocessed from RAW, but I think the benefit would be minimal. There isn't any blown highlights, just slight overexposure. And the overexposure is mainly in areas of detail, so any benefit of working with a colour space larger than 8 bit is largely lost in situations like that - you simply wouldn't notice any introduced posterisation. So is it really worth insisting on reprocessing it from RAW in this case?
Ðiliff«»(Talk)22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Compare to edit 1? The difference is quite subtle (didn't need a huge amount), but I think it's an improvement. NS's feedback welcome too.
Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)reply
What is your objection (in reality, not in theory) to edit 1? It could be reprocessed from RAW, but I think the benefit would be minimal. There isn't any blown highlights, just slight overexposure. And the overexposure is mainly in areas of detail, so any benefit of working with a colour space larger than 8 bit is largely lost in situations like that - you simply wouldn't notice any introduced posterisation. So is it really worth insisting on reprocessing it from RAW in this case?
Ðiliff«»(Talk)22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply