On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Well-said. I really don't understand the credibility of the anti-RAW
argument that it adds a tremendous amount of work to the workflow.
Even in my linux-land, I've got an automated script to dump RAW files
from the card, apply auto white-balance, ICC profile, auto-exposure,
and dump out a high-quality JPEG complete with USM applied. You
know... EXACTLY what the camera does when you do an in-camera JPEG.
All it costs me is having to let my computer chew on them unattended
for a few minutes. In fact, the time it takes to copy the files from
the card is about the same as the processing from RAW->JPEG. Very
little additional time is taken for the 95% of the shots that are fine
by default. For the 5% that I want to give extra attention to (WB,
exposure nonlinearities, etc), I've got the master.
I'm *sure* that all of the spiffy winders-only expensive RAW
converters everyone uses can do the same as my free, open-source
utilities.
Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that
FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice.
No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a
long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a
situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout,
considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event,
that RAW is not a sensible choice?
-Aaron
