RAW should give you the best possible image to work with. You can do white balance corrections and exposure corrections easily - depending a bit on the software of course - than you can on jpegs.
Also one should check the write speed for the camera. I am most familiar with the Nikon D1X and D1H, and if the camera does any compression (jpeg and even RAW compressed) it takes longer than RAW. Depending on shooting speed and buffer size of the camera this could become a factor. That being said I shot mostly in jpeg for ease in postproduction - quicker to post images and such. This was only after I got somewhat used to the camera and the tweaking I had to do in-camera (underexposure, metering, white balance and such) to minimize work on the images... Just my experience, Cesar Panama City, Florida P.S. Knowing that the learning curve on a digital camera is larger. -- -----Original Message----- -- From: wendy beard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 7:12 -- -- At 04:29 PM 04/09/2003 -0400, you wrote: -- -- >I tried RAW, but after careful comparing and consideration, -- especially -- >viewing RAW and jpeg originals side by side, there was so little -- >difference, it was almost unnoticeable on the screen, and completely -- >irrelevent on an inkjet print. -- > -- >YMMV, but try it yourself - I think you'll soon switch to -- best quality -- >jpegs in the interest of space on the CF card :-) -- -- Hmm, that's the conclusion I am starting to come to. I -- started off with -- jpegs then was swayed by the RAW faction. I'm going back to -- jpegs. RAW's -- not worth the bother. All the hassle of converting raw to -- tiff and to jpg -- and backing up the whole lot. I've got better things to do. -- (oh, hang on, I'm unemployed, so no I haven't) -- -- -- Wendy Beard, -- Ottawa, Canada -- http://www.beard-redfern.com -- --
