|
Q: Fried or RAW?
I don’t understand RAW: It eats up a lot of space on my memory card, it takes a while to process the file, and post-processing is time consuming. I know you can adjust the lighting and color without losing quality, but I’ve compared a photo I took in RAW with a high-quality JPEG and couldn’t tell the difference. So, what’s so great about RAW?
Steve Kim
Los Angeles, CA
A: Shooting and processing RAW files give you ultimate control. It lets you fine-tune white balance, sharpness, contrast, and other image-quality parameters after the fact while still working with the original recorded data. It also allows you to save images as 16-bit TIFF files with embedded color profiles, which may give you some retouching advantage in programs such as Adobe Photoshop. In most cases, however, there is little to be gained from shooting in RAW compared with the highest-quality JPEG setting, especially when you consider the hit you take in storage capacity and post-processing time. With JPEG images, minor white balance and exposure corrections can be done faster in a wide variety of image-editing programs prior to printing or sharing. The best of both worlds? Cameras that feature simultaneous RAW + JPEG storage for your most treasured shots.
Q: A scan-dal?
I read recently that the U.S. Postal Service will begin using electron beam scanning equipment to sterilize mail against exposure to anthrax. This electron-beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film as if it were exposed to sunlight! True?
Lawrence Sachs
Lake Worth, FL
A: Your information is based on old news. In early 2002, at the height of the anthrax scare, the E-beam system of mail sterilization was tried on a limited basis. Tests conducted by the International Imaging Industry Association showed that E-beam sanitization caused damage to film products that rendered them unusable. The system was never put into widespread use.
Q: Small and wide
I am looking for a compact film camera that has a built-in 28mm lens with excellent sharpness and minimal distortion. Is it better to stick with cameras that have fixed-focal-length lenses to avoid distortion and other image-quality problems? What do you recommend?
Matt Shannon
Chicago, IL
A: Regrettably, there are no new point-and-shoot 35mm cameras with fixed-focal-length 28mm lenses in production. If you can find a good used Ricoh GR1, you’ll have just what you want. They usually run about $200 used. Lacking that, there are zoom models that we can recommend: the Yashica T4 Zoom ($170 street), which has a 28–70mm f/4.5–8 lens, the Leica C3 Zoom ($370 street), which has a 28–80mm f/3.6–7.9 lens, and the Olympus Stylus 100 Wide ($130 street), with a 28–100mm f/4.6–11.9 lens.
Q: Konica-mount DSLRs?
It’s great that folks with lots of old Canon, Nikon, and Minolta lenses can buy a new digital SLR that will accept their existing optics. But what about those shooters with old Konica SLR lenses?
Tom Wood
Dunn, NC
A: The old Konica SLR mount is dead as far as digital SLRs are concerned. Same thing holds true with old manual-focus Canon- and Minolta-mount lenses. Only Nikon and Pentax have managed to hold onto some degree of use for their old lenses.
|
