I agree that RAW is a big advantage. If Ann's comment is based on
something I said then my comment was misunderstood. I'm sure I could
place some jpeg shots on stock, but I won't risk shooting jpeg on
important work. The downside -- a loss of control -- is too big. But,
yes, you can interpolate a jpeg to a dimension that will satisfy the
stock house. Whether you can achieve the necessary quality on a regular
basis is difficult to predict. But if it's the only alternative, then
go for it.
Paul
On May 23, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 23 May 2005 at 19:29, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
someone here finally admitted (in the RAW
discussion) that
if I got it right in camera, jpeg would be just as
good for interpolating
to my stock agency's requirements... as long as
the jpeg image was large
enough and hade enough detail.
I don't agree, it depends on whether the scene fits the capabilities
of the
JPG, there is no getting away from the fact that RAW affords far
greater
flexibility in latitude and colour adjustment at the bear minimum.
Though I'm
sure an agency would take pics from a Lomo if they were what they were
after.
Sorry just woke up trawling though my emails so I'm a bit irritated by
all the
BS being dished out by the old fart brigade (of which I distance
myself today).
If St Ansel was writing about exposure today he would be writing an
entirely
different book.
Grrr.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
