Raw format= cheap camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by BF, Oct 23, 2003.

  1. BF

    BF Guest

    What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with professional
    optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    What do you think?
     
    BF, Oct 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. BF

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to have very
    small files - which are handy too.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    professional
    > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > What do you think?
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. BF

    BF Guest

    My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of the
    electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    the expense that goes with it.



    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:_wXlb.1279$...
    > Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to have

    very
    > small files - which are handy too.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    > professional
    > > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding

    Raw
    > > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is

    recorded.
    > > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would

    be
    > > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because

    I
    > > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > > What do you think?
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    BF, Oct 23, 2003
    #3
  4. "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    professional
    > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > What do you think?


    RAW files are large. The in-camera processing required for balance,
    sharpening, compression and so on are not so much compared to the color
    interpolation algorithms for the sensor array. In other words, significant
    processing power is needed in any case.

    The major camera costs would not be largely impacted by designing a RAW-only
    camera. Add to that the restrictions that such a design would place on
    broad based-sales, due to the limited appeal and use of such a product.
    Canon has a good handle on how to make a profit by selling these kinds of
    technologies.
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 23, 2003
    #4
  5. BF

    Jim Townsend Guest

    BF wrote:

    > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of the
    > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > the expense that goes with it.
    >



    I doubt if it would make any difference.. All this stuff is done on one or two
    chips that they mass produce.
     
    Jim Townsend, Oct 23, 2003
    #5
  6. BF

    jriegle Guest

    It would not save much because the algorithms have been developed so it does
    little to lower the cost by not implementing them in the cameras. The camera
    will still need processor power to handle the controls and file system.

    It is also false economy because you have to spend extra time correcting the
    color balance contrast and such. RAW can take a wile to write to the flash
    card.
    John

    "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:dEXlb.124614$...
    > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of

    the
    > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > the expense that goes with it.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > news:_wXlb.1279$...
    > > Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to have

    > very
    > > small files - which are handy too.
    > >
    > > --
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > > news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > > > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    > > professional
    > > > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding

    > Raw
    > > > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is

    > recorded.
    > > > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > > > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing

    would
    > be
    > > > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me

    because
    > I
    > > > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > > > What do you think?
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    jriegle, Oct 23, 2003
    #6
  7. BF

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Most likely not one red cent cheaper since they would then have to make two
    models -- one for you and one for the rest of the world. It's the economies
    of scale - instead of haveing twenty models with differeing features they
    make one model with all the features and let the consumer pick which ones
    they want to use. It makes for simpler manufacture, storage, shipping etc.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:dEXlb.124614$...
    > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of

    the
    > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > the expense that goes with it.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > news:_wXlb.1279$...
    > > Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to have

    > very
    > > small files - which are handy too.
    > >
    > > --
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > > news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > > > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    > > professional
    > > > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding

    > Raw
    > > > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is

    > recorded.
    > > > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > > > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing

    would
    > be
    > > > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me

    because
    > I
    > > > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > > > What do you think?
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 23, 2003
    #7
  8. BF

    BF Guest

    Thanks for the opinions. You have made some very good points.




    "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    professional
    > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > What do you think?
    >
    >
     
    BF, Oct 23, 2003
    #8
  9. BF

    Ron Hunter Guest

    BF wrote:
    > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with professional
    > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > What do you think?
    >
    >

    I think that would limit your pictures to use on YOUR computer, which
    may be no inconvenience to you, but it probably would to others, and the
    files from RAW output are quite large.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 23, 2003
    #9
  10. BF

    Ron Hunter Guest

    BF wrote:

    > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of the
    > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > the expense that goes with it.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > news:_wXlb.1279$...
    >
    >>Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to have

    >
    > very
    >
    >>small files - which are handy too.
    >>
    >>--
    >>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    >>home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    >>The Improved Links Pages are at
    >>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    >>A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    >>http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    >>"BF" <> wrote in message
    >>news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    >>
    >>>What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with

    >>
    >>professional
    >>
    >>>optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding

    >
    > Raw
    >
    >>>format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is

    >
    > recorded.
    >
    >>>It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    >>>compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would

    >
    > be
    >
    >>>done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because

    >
    > I
    >
    >>>post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    >>>What do you think?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >

    I don't think it would save a lot of money, since the CPU is there
    already, as is the RAM. It might make a faster camera, however.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 23, 2003
    #10
  11. > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with professional
    > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > What do you think?


    I wouldn't have a problem with it.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 23, 2003
    #11
  12. "BF" <> wrote in
    news:ZpXlb.124610$:

    > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with
    > professional optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am
    > understanding Raw format correctly, only the information that comes
    > off the CCD is recorded. It wouldn't need any electronics for white
    > balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc. Files would be fairly
    > small and all processing would be done in software later. This would
    > be the perfect set up for me because I post process all of my digital
    > pictures anyway. What do you think?


    IMO, it would be a flop. Modern cameras use dedicated processors for doing
    their image processing, and these parts aren't particularly expensive,
    especially compared to the CCD or CMOS imager.

    (Heck, while you're at it, why not make a camera with an uncommon lens
    mount, and use a weird imager, too? You'd dethrone the Sigma SD9!)

    I'd bet you'd offset the savings by needing *way* more memory in the
    camera, since RAW images are considerably bigger than JPEGs. You'd also
    end up with poor economy of scale, because you'd reduce your market.

    OTOH, you could keep cost reducing your full-featured DSLR, as Canon has
    done. Share the processor, cheapen the body, and turn off a few features
    to decontent your consumer model.

    Makes more sense to me than creating an intentionally crippled product with
    major features (like the ability to output a finished image) missing.

    --
    Albert Nurick www.TheDeliciousLife.com
    A guide to the good life
    www.nurick.com in Houston, Texas
     
    Albert Nurick, Oct 24, 2003
    #12
  13. BF

    Lionel Guest

    Word has it that on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:22:17 GMT, in this august forum,
    "BF" <> said:

    >My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of the
    >electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    >Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    >the expense that goes with it.


    In theory, that is a reasonable idea. In practice, they've already spent
    all the R&D money designing the Digic chipsets that go into their
    cameras, so you're essentially getting all the JPEG, etc, stuff for
    free.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Oct 24, 2003
    #13
  14. BF

    SimonG Ltd. Guest

    "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:dEXlb.124614$...
    > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of

    the
    > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > the expense that goes with it.
    >
    >

    SNIP

    White balance, JPG, etc . . will be done by software running on the CPU
    inside the camera . . . this is the firmware in the camera . . . to remove
    it would not make the camera any cheaper to manufacture so the retail price
    would not be effected.

    cheers, SimonG
    -------------------
    Let me know what you think . . . www.F1Album.com
     
    SimonG Ltd., Oct 24, 2003
    #14
  15. In article <PfYlb.4571$>,
    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote:

    > Most likely not one red cent cheaper since they would then have to make two
    > models -- one for you and one for the rest of the world. It's the economies
    > of scale - instead of haveing twenty models with differeing features they
    > make one model with all the features and let the consumer pick which ones
    > they want to use. It makes for simpler manufacture, storage, shipping etc.


    That would be great if you could plug the camera into your computer and
    use a nice self-explanatory GUI to decide what features showed up in
    menus on the camera. The most common complaint I hear about Digital
    cameras is "there are too many options - I can't ever find the one thing
    I want to use". The tiny interface with literally 100 options is just
    more than many people can deal with.

    While I'm at it, I'm looking for a reasonable quality SIMPLE digital
    camera - about 3Mpixels, no zoom, no movies, etc. I need to put several
    together in an array. I'd be happy with bare camera boards if I could
    find them. Any ideas?


    >
    > --
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > news:dEXlb.124614$...
    > > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of

    > the
    > > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > > the expense that goes with it.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > > news:_wXlb.1279$...
    > > > Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to have

    > > very
    > > > small files - which are handy too.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > > > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > > > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > > > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > > > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > > > > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with
    > > > professional
    > > > > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding

    > > Raw
    > > > > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is

    > > recorded.
    > > > > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > > > > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing

    > would
    > > be
    > > > > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me

    > because
    > > I
    > > > > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > > > > What do you think?
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >

    --
    Real Working Engineer
     
    Michael Gardner, Oct 24, 2003
    #15
  16. "BF" <> wrote in message
    news:dEXlb.124614$...
    > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all of

    the
    > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression, etc?
    > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics and
    > the expense that goes with it.
    >
    >

    They might, if they thought there was a big enough market. The price of any
    product includes design, tooling, distribution and advertising costs, and
    perhaps some other expenses I've missed. If that has to be spread over a
    small number of sales, the cost per unit can be pretty big.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Oct 24, 2003
    #16
  17. BF

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Buy a K1000 and stick with film
    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Michael Gardner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <PfYlb.4571$>,
    > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Most likely not one red cent cheaper since they would then have to make

    two
    > > models -- one for you and one for the rest of the world. It's the

    economies
    > > of scale - instead of haveing twenty models with differeing features

    they
    > > make one model with all the features and let the consumer pick which

    ones
    > > they want to use. It makes for simpler manufacture, storage, shipping

    etc.
    >
    > That would be great if you could plug the camera into your computer and
    > use a nice self-explanatory GUI to decide what features showed up in
    > menus on the camera. The most common complaint I hear about Digital
    > cameras is "there are too many options - I can't ever find the one thing
    > I want to use". The tiny interface with literally 100 options is just
    > more than many people can deal with.
    >
    > While I'm at it, I'm looking for a reasonable quality SIMPLE digital
    > camera - about 3Mpixels, no zoom, no movies, etc. I need to put several
    > together in an array. I'd be happy with bare camera boards if I could
    > find them. Any ideas?
    >
    >
    > >
    > > --
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > > news:dEXlb.124614$...
    > > > My point is, how cheap could they make a very good camera without all

    of
    > > the
    > > > electronics needed for white balance, sharpness, jpeg compression,

    etc?
    > > > Since I do all post processing I don't need the additional electronics

    and
    > > > the expense that goes with it.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:_wXlb.1279$...
    > > > > Since they already have RAW, go buy one. The reason for jpgs is to

    have
    > > > very
    > > > > small files - which are handy too.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    > > > > home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    > > > > The Improved Links Pages are at
    > > > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    > > > > A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    > > > > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    > > > > "BF" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:ZpXlb.124610$...
    > > > > > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with
    > > > > professional
    > > > > > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am

    understanding
    > > > Raw
    > > > > > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is
    > > > recorded.
    > > > > > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness,

    jpeg
    > > > > > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing

    > > would
    > > > be
    > > > > > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me

    > > because
    > > > I
    > > > > > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > > > > > What do you think?
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    > --
    > Real Working Engineer
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 24, 2003
    #17
  18. BF

    Alan Browne Guest

    BF wrote:

    > What would happen if Canon was to make a very good camera with professional
    > optics and make it so it shoots raw format only? If I am understanding Raw
    > format correctly, only the information that comes off the CCD is recorded.
    > It wouldn't need any electronics for white balance, sharpness, jpeg
    > compression, etc. Files would be fairly small and all processing would be
    > done in software later. This would be the perfect set up for me because I
    > post process all of my digital pictures anyway.
    > What do you think?
    >
    >



    ....As the camera needs to process that image to present it to the viewer
    in any case, then as long as there is processing, it is relatively cheap
    to add histograms, white balance, lighting compensation, etc.

    Files will not be fairly small. To properly use RAW you need to
    "losslessly" record all of the information in the image. It can be
    compressed for storage, but must be lossless compression. Lossless
    compression does not compress as much as, eg, JPEG.

    In-camera fucntions such as white balance do not increase the size of
    the file; jpeg saving reduces the size of the file.

    So, indeed save all in RAW, and while you're at it, set the exposure
    comp to -2/3 or -1, preserving detail in the shaddows while avoiding
    blown out highlights.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 24, 2003
    #18
  19. BF

    Alan Browne Guest

    Albert Nurick wrote:


    > (Heck, while you're at it, why not make a camera with an uncommon lens
    > mount, and use a weird imager, too? You'd dethrone the Sigma SD9!)
    >


    It would have to be *on* a throne first!

    ;-}
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 24, 2003
    #19
  20. BF

    JackD Guest

    "Alan Browne" <"Alan Browne"@videotron.canospam> wrote in message
    news:GXdmb.33326$...
    >
    >
    > Albert Nurick wrote:
    >
    >
    > > (Heck, while you're at it, why not make a camera with an uncommon lens
    > > mount, and use a weird imager, too? You'd dethrone the Sigma SD9!)
    > >

    >
    > It would have to be *on* a throne first!
    >
    > ;-}


    Couldn't it be *in* the throne?

    -Jack
     
    JackD, Oct 24, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    How raw is RAW format?

    Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    584
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Dec 22, 2003
  2. chibitul
    Replies:
    129
    Views:
    2,336
  3. systmster

    cheap lights, cheap setup..

    systmster, Mar 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    589
    tomm42
    Mar 14, 2006
  4. Trellis Management
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    505
    Wallace D.
    Oct 1, 2008
  5. sobriquet

    canon ps sx1 raw -> adobe camera raw

    sobriquet, Apr 25, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,231
    jimbok
    May 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page