On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:15:58 -0400, Caveman wrote: > >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> I disagree about getting a better camera if the reason is #2: If using >> RAW works better than your in-camera processing and is compatible with >> your workflow, why spend more money on a better camera toachieve the >> same thing at a greater cost? To impress people? That's Canon-style >> thinking! <g> > >Not exactly. If in-camera processing is good enough to allow you to >achieve similar results to those you get from photoshopping a RAW file, >then you've just eliminated a step from your workflow. You might even >work without a computer at all. By Jove, in the good ole days of film, I >was not running it through some home made alchemy before sending it to >the lab, so why should I have an extra step now with a digicam.
It's comparing machine prints to hand made enlargements. I was never happy with machine prints. JPEGS are good under normal snapshot conditions, this does not describe my style of photography. Hence I shoot RAW to enable me more latitude. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
