On 8/5/06, Tom Pfeiffer, discombobulated, unleashed: >For me, the benefit of RAW is exposure control. Once I've tweaked the >exposure until I'm happy with it, then it's time to make a JPG (or TIFF) for >further manipulation. Yes, you lose quality with a JPG, but it's >progressive, not all at once. But the files need to be in a format that >editing software can deal with in order to print them.
There is also the point about printers. Viz: I shoot a RAW pic and (say) save it as a Photoshop file (.psd). I shoot the same pic as a best quality JPEG and save it as a .psd as well. (Assume exposure is fine and both pics have no blown highlights or clogged up blacks). I print both on my S9000 and I dare you to tell the two apart. Yes the best thing about RAW is exposure control after-the-fact, but to be honest I shoot JPEG 99% of the time because my end result is a print from a printer that cannot out-resolve the original. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
