Thanks for the responses, sorry it took me forever to get back here. I couldn't find this thread!
I would definitely consider that. I'm not really actively looking at a camera now (I wish to spend the little money I have on other things atm) but if I ever do that'd probably be my best option.
Indeed, for most people it probably is. I'm probably the geekiest when it comes to colors though so I should be able to have some fun with it. I'm more into the technical aspect of it than the art aspect. It would just be nice to have some sort of lossless output. It seems silly to only be able to get at a compressed version of what you just captured. I mean, what about PNG? That would be cool too, if it's not quite as flexible as RAW. I realize that you probably lose quality all the time when you try and scan in analog photos, but I figure as long as it's a digital camera it should be digital all the way through and I should be able to look at what it captured 1:1. I know my photo composition skills suck, and if you add lossless compression and ugly noise filtering to them they will only get worse. I am fairly adept at image editing though.
My main thing against compression is that it uses psychovisual algorithms. When you edit the gamma curves enough, they don't trick the human eyes anymore. They come out loud and clear and are a blatant interference in your photo. It is impossible to isolate them.
Originally posted by: virtuamike
Have you considered film? You can get a manual SLR and lens for cheap, and they make decent scanners for $100-150. Even with film and lab costs, it might be a practical alternative.
I would definitely consider that. I'm not really actively looking at a camera now (I wish to spend the little money I have on other things atm) but if I ever do that'd probably be my best option.
RAW is overrated. The elitist digital photographers in here may scoff at me for saying that, but I and many others believe it true. There's a time and place for RAW, and that time and place is not "all the time and everywhere".
Indeed, for most people it probably is. I'm probably the geekiest when it comes to colors though so I should be able to have some fun with it. I'm more into the technical aspect of it than the art aspect. It would just be nice to have some sort of lossless output. It seems silly to only be able to get at a compressed version of what you just captured. I mean, what about PNG? That would be cool too, if it's not quite as flexible as RAW. I realize that you probably lose quality all the time when you try and scan in analog photos, but I figure as long as it's a digital camera it should be digital all the way through and I should be able to look at what it captured 1:1. I know my photo composition skills suck, and if you add lossless compression and ugly noise filtering to them they will only get worse. I am fairly adept at image editing though.
My main thing against compression is that it uses psychovisual algorithms. When you edit the gamma curves enough, they don't trick the human eyes anymore. They come out loud and clear and are a blatant interference in your photo. It is impossible to isolate them.