On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:19:32 +0100, Aaron Reynolds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
No.
With a decent computer, and the right software, processing RAW takes very
little time, and has the advantage that it allows much more tweaking than
JPEG. Or do you REALLY never make an error with exposure?
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
