Hello Aaron, Even as a RAW shooter myself, I can fully understand why you would shoot jpg. In your situation, you can dial in the exposure you want, along with WB and be on your way. I think some venues can benefit by shooting jpg.
-- Bruce Friday, April 7, 2006, 5:19:32 AM, you wrote: AR> 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. AR> Cory, did you read my post? I said NOTHING about anti-RAW, I said that AR> FOR MY USE of the camera it was not the correct choice. AR> No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a AR> long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a AR> situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, AR> considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, AR> that RAW is not a sensible choice? AR> -Aaron
