Not everyone agrees .....
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Don't flame me, I am just encouraging discussion ....
I've read this guy's collumn on it. He's definately opinionated.
Basically, most of what he says boils down to:
- Poor workflow
He's obviously had issues with the RAW conversion software. I can't say I
blame him because from what I can see, most of the winders-flavored stuff
is very fiddly, pointy-clicky, user-hostile crap. The speed issues are
not really valid so long as you have a reasonably fast computer. If you
cheap out on the hardware (USB-1.1 card reader for instance), transferring
1000 6MB raw files won't be much more painful than 2.5MB JPEGs.
- Ignorance is bliss
Relying on the in-camera JPEG produces great-looking results usually. If
you aren't going to do much for post-processing, very little is to be
gained from shooting in RAW. Unfortunately, many pictures *do* benefit
from some exposure compensation, shadow/highligh expansion, etc. That
simple operation cannot be done in JPEG without posterization.
- Elitist snobbery
"Shoot correctly the first time" is a crap snobbery argument. There
wouldn't be any use for features like bracketing or curve adjustment if
everything was perfect already. Especially for things like complicated
lighting, should one really have to take multiple JPEG shots with multiple
expected white balance settings to get the shot right? I say no...
compose the shot properly, expose the shot properly, and fix the
*technical* problems later if necessary.
Oh well, to each their own. I won't try to convert people, but I
understand the differences and am willing to sacrifice the (relatively
minor) inconvenience to have more flexibility later.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
