As a Nikon user, I can confirm this is not so. Nikon RAW can be opened and converted by Photoshop, Adobe RAW converter, Pixmantec RawShooter, etc. In fact I use any of these instead of the Nikon offering!
Ken
I stand corrected but I think you will find that the D2X recently released has encrypted white balance data, and this has caused much consternation. Camera makers should stick to what they do best, making cameras, and not trying to write software that others are much better at. It pays to read the article in the first post, and ask your self, is this the thin edge???
I’d say that one other difference is that TIFF is a non-proprietary format, whereas RAW is manufacturer dependent. TIFF however tends to produce larger files than RAW.
Richard.
RAW is what all digital cameras shoot, and you are correct in that unlike Tiff’s and JPEG’s etc, RAW files are all different. Cheaper consumer cameras all process their RAW files and it is only the Professional and pro-sumer (Yuck) cameras that generally allow shooting in RAW. In fact top Cameras will produce a RAW and a JPEG so that the photographer can sort out their photos quickly and not waste time processing worthless shots
This area is a source of concern in Professional Photography circles at present. If I remember correctly Nikon will only allow conversions of RAW files taken with a Nikon Camera with their own software, where as with Canon, Olympus etc you can use propriety software from the manufacturer or a third party utility such as Capture One, Adobe RAW Converter, or any number of shareware offerings.
What this ultimately means I think, is that as well as keeping a RAW file, you should keep a TIFF original, if you are a serious photographer. This presents a storage issue as the Volume of data can be daunting. So we will have a RAW, a TIFF and a processed and corrected Hi-res JPEG and a low-res jpeg for posting or email. Couple that with CDs that will not last, so we copy it all to DVD, and then in a few years we copy it all to the next generation of storage media, that Toshiba and Sony are throwing bricks at one and other over. Oh dear, have we been here before???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Those were the words I was looking for. Thanks.
Moggy
You’re welcome 🙂
My camera outputs in RAW, TIFF, or JPG.
I can’t discern any difference between the RAW images and the Tiffs. Can anybody tell me briefly and in layman’s language why I should ever save my happy snaps in RAW?
Moggy
Moggy a RAW is just like a negative or Slide. It’s the bare data collected by the Camera with no processing. RAWs need to be processed before they can be viewed. This gives the photographer choice when processing the files. Tiffs are processed, without loss of data and retain all the original quality. JPEGs are compressed but lose information so that each time you process the file you may run the risk of losing quality. Conversion to JPEG is the last stage in saving the finished photo.
If you shoot Tiffs the files are large and you have relied on the camera to do the processing. This can slow the camera down. The camera will also generally not process as well as a RAW converter Hope this helps.
Does Red Lion have a Sabre???
and ……
Twin Wasp’s
Centaurus,
Pegasus
V1710
V1650
R1830
R1820
R2600
R2800
R3350
DB605???
now how long will we wait for a
Jumo 213,
BMW 801
R4360
Hercules
and last but not least
Sabre
Anything missing??
Ummmm AHF 10 the connection between paint and the Vulcan is a little tenuous to say the least. However I sympathise with those who spend vast sums for our enjoyment only to see some nerd pick holes in the paint scheme, or wrong exhausts etc etc. I suggest dealing with the criticism directly, and with paint it is simple, be direct and just ask “were you there then”. That stops it.
With the Vulcan be clear. Many people have voiced lots of criticism of this project, some of it justified when viewed from the persons point of view, much of it rubbish, being just a personal or emotional view masquerading as fact but often with out substance. There is nothing more guaranteed to get the forum going into full afterburner than to make a comment inferring greater knowledge, and then not producing the goods, however well intentioned.
This only results in criticism for the poster in a situation that may not be justified. So if you don’t want it, don’t post it.
I will now dive for cover into my hardened shelter built especially to observe Russian ICBM’s arriving over Stanstead.
TempestNut,
Good call.
I have both the books and have been in continuous dialogue with Malcolm Laird, the owner and editor of Ventura Pubs, for some years. Malcolm has this past week given me his best judgement on the US wing cocardes
Without revealing the scheme, if you will bear with me, these two publications have been the prime source of information for the chosen livery.
Mark
I just knew you would have the books. I meet Malcolm back in 98 when I was last visiting Wellington and he seemed to be well connected and had a lot of interesting information about spitfires. 🙂
Mark12 I think your best resource that I know of are the 2 volumes by Ventura Publications of US Spitfires. They cover ETO & MTO and cover the 31st FG and 52nd FG in some detail with some good colour photographs. For those that are easily confused the 52nd FG (2nd 4th & 5th fighter squadrons) operated in the UK before moving to the MTO and its aircraft carried the same codes as the 4th FG for the same reasons as I outlined above for the 31st FG (307th 308th & 309th fighter squadrons) .
When looking at the photos in these books it obvious that there were many variations in the size and style of the stars applied, and it looks to me that the early stars applied for Torch directly over the top of RAF roundels look very odd indeed.
It appears that once the Groups had established permanent bases that the US National insignia was reapplied using correct proportions, and it was probably at this time when one of the upper and lower stars was removed as was usual US practice. However this was not always the case and photo’s and illustrations show aircraft with stars and bars on both upper and lower wing positions. The 52nd FG also applied RAF fin flashes whilst the 31st generally did not, although there were many variations to this.
The yellow outline to the stars was for Torch and many US spits carried 3 inch yellow outlines and not 2 inch. Hope this helps
Franck66 Excellent quality as usual, thanks for posting
Absolutely NO CONTEST!
Hans Joachim Marseille.
Every one of his victories were against Western pilots, in the best machines they had available. 17 British fighters in one day!
A bit of a bad lad, but a damn good fighter pilot!
Regards
Black6
Good choice but the same system that made him an ace also drove him to his death
If you bought a lottery ticket, you are paying for the restoration…..and lining Marshalls pocket cus they will get the lions share of the 2.7 million the lottery stumped up.
So the lottery fund effectively are giving money to a business…..is that in the rules.
i can continue
Jumping on a tiresome bandwagon?????????
The 31st FG was originally posted to the UK as part of the 8th Air Force. They we then posted to the Med with their spitfires and kept their 8th Air Force codes. The replacements from the states were the 78th FG and they were allocated the same codes that had previously been allocated to the 31st FG. The air ministry allocated all codes worn by 8th fighters (and the 9th Air force) and from memory did not block allocate so the 8th would have needed to recycle the old 31st codes.
I can not recall if the 31st keeping its old codes was official or some expedient of war, but I seem to recall that US fighters in the Med did not generally carry UK style codes issued by the air ministry. The exceptions being those Groups that were UK based and then posted to the Med.
SallyB was front page on this week’s Insurance Journals, so everyone within the Insurance industry must now know about it now. I have plugged with those I travel on the train with who work in the industry to prod their Boss’s into taking up the issue and /or offering some sponsorship. Just my little bit, but it may add some weight, and every little counts.
Great pictures BN. Some great reference material there.
Tempestnut