Tom C wrote:
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Doubtless if I shot RAW all the time I would have the ability to get the
very best out of each and every frame. The truth is I don't have the
time to spare sat in front of the Mac. [ ... ]
If I were shooting for a magazine I'd undoubtedly shoot RAW. I'm not!
The camera does a great job of exposure and if the jpeg is that bad I'll
pass. Besides, I like contrasty lighting setups ;-)
>
>You continue shooting jpegs, I'll continue shooting raw. That way we
>will both be happy <grin>.
It also has to do with the business you're in doesn't it? I shoot RAW
all the time now, and it is very time consuming, as a RAW workflow
cannot automatically deliver the best for each individual shot. The
learning curve is steep and time consuming with lots of trial and
error. Luckily, only a small percentage of my shots are worth bringing
into CS2 proper, so it's not too big of a hit. ;-)
For a person whose daily job is photojournalism, it's quite easy to
see where .jpg has a huge advantage.
It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same
output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the information
is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance settings etc. applied
to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file aren't they? So it should
really be possible to get the same print/file view as with the JPEG with
no user interaction whatsoever. Maybe the problem is poor software, or
perhaps missing RAW support in simple apps due to the lack of a common
file format. If something like DNG gets widely adopted, maybe we'll see
more software that will display/print directly from files of that
format, just applying the default colour transformations?
- T
