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.
I disagree on this one. The difference is that with a JPG
workflow, you have to do the tweaking at the time you take the picture.
If you take the time to do white balancing, saturation/sharpness
adjustment, etc at the time of the shot, that constipates workflow too.
I've rigged up a "dumpcam" script that slurps down all RAW files,
converts to medium-quality JPG using ICC color profile, sharpens, and
saves RAWs. It's pretty much set to auto white-balance, auto-exposure
compensate... just like the camera would have. Then on the few that you
want to put the extra time in, I can do some more tweaking... knowing
that I've got the best quality that my current photography skills allow.
The only part of the RAW workflow that is inherently slower is the
act of copying larger files, and the RAW conversion itself... takes 10-20
seconds each of unsupervised computer time. Just need to think the
workflow through initially to streamline it.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
