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.
Grrr back :) Rob, I would love to have lots and lots of cf cards and a big computer and all that and would like to shoot in raw -- but but right now I just want to be able to make a file that meets certain requirements - my asthetics, my stock agency's technical requirements at the same time trying to understand what the hell I'm doing and doing as much as I can on a very limited budget. But the prime rule of the agency is a certain file size and 'minimal clean-up' no fancy stuff, but cropping ok. I was discussing RAW vs Jpeg in camera with the kid who sold me the PRO-1 at PHoto-tech and I asked him if he shot in RAW and he said "only when I HAVE to." I like to fiddle with stuff in photoshop for my t shirt designs and stuff, and just to play with making ebay displays, but for straight photography it has to be really compelling for me to spend a lot of time in post processing. ann > > 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
