Marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: > >Thanks Jim, for your clear explanation. That last part is certainly true >for me. I gave it a look, notice I spent a lot of time getting a few >files right and still had many more to go, and just gave up. I will give >C1LE a good look. >Would it be fair to say that if you're doing a "walkaround" report (like >with some event) or doing journalism, it is suffice to use JPG, but if >you want to go for quality shots, ones that you spend time setting up >anyway, use RAW?
I don't know but for me RAW is always the way to go. If it's important enough for me to pull the trigger, I want to be able to optimize it without hassling with camera settings. This is even more important in contrasty lighting, changing light, etc. Under controlled conditions and lighting when you really need lots of images on a CF, JPG might be fine. If you can live with a lower quality image. Jim Davis Nature Photography http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
