snip >no one has yet identified a print made from RAW as opposed
to one made from the jpeg sourced from the same image.
No big surprise there. If your exposure and white balance are on the money their should be no huge difference, but try doing a white balance at the end of a hall with fluorescent lights that vary all over the place and shoot for an hour in the hall with jpg, going from area to area with ever-changing white balance and THEN you will appreciate raw. Raw is kind of like shooting film with a much wider latitude and correctability than slide film, which is a bit more like shooting jpg (although I recognize it is not a very tight analogy). When you anticipate white balance or exposure issues, RAW is invaluable. It allows you to turn the color temp up or down with little damage to the picture. I did a recent on-site portrait shoot where the person wanted it outdoors in the midst of green foliage, sometimes moving into the sun with harsh shadows; sometimes with lighting and sometimes in shade. Very demanding in terms of continually changing white balance. RAW allowed me to shoot without concern and match up all the images in post. Both jpg and RAW have their use, to be sure. It all depends on the circumstances.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
