I haven't read all of this thread, but to my mind there are perfectly good
reasons why one would not need to shoot raw all the time. Aaron has given
an exemplary one, where he knows he isn't going to have problems with the
exposures and WB.
Here's another: I did a photo-shoot for an accounting firm last week: the
brief was fairly well-defined, the output was to be reproduced in no more
than 8cm x 5cm, mainly in newspaper media, but with some re-use in
newsletters for their clients. It also had to be delivered ASAP, ideally
that night: so I shot in *** Jpeg, at 200 ASA, normal sharpening and AWB.
Out of some dozens of frames, only three needed exposure adjustment, and
they were taken with an M50/1.7, in standard office lighting or with flash.
The *ist-D's AWB worked perfectly, giving me true colours with or without
flash. I'd shot a couple of test frames before I started to ensure that
everything looked OK, and needed only to wind the flash exposure down by 1
stop - which I find I normally have to do with my Sigma 18-35 and the AF
330FTZ combination.
The client was presented with a CD at the end of the shoot, having been able
to view the work as we went along on my laptop (camera plugged straight in
to the USB port) with all the images shot according to the brief, plus a
couple I had had ideas for, and was very well pleased with the results.
I was delighted to find the *ist-D worked flawlessly, as did the AF330FTZ,
and all the lenses - except one occasion where I'd accidentally knocked the
Sigma off 'A' onto f3.5! Naturally, that frame was over-exposed, but was
spotted, deleted, and re-shot immediately.
So I'm with Aaron and Shel: if you know your market/requirements, shoot what
is appropriate, and never mind the pundits!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
I'm of a different opinion. The question was about what a photographer
might want, which may be different in many ways from what the program(s)
may offer. A photographer may have a perfect understanding of raw
conversion, but s/he may ~want~ something more or different. One thing
has
little or nothing to do with the other.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Date: 4/7/2006 4:39:19 PM
Subject: Re: OT: help from the RAW file shooters
On 7 Apr 2006 at 16:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I can't believe the comments Aaron is getting in this thread. The
original
> question (which was not posed by Aaron and which has yet to be
acknowledged
> or answered as far as I can see), was:
>
> "What are some typical things you'd want to
> do if you had a RAW file and you wanted to
> make sure everything was okay before you
> saved it in the other format? We know the
> things the program can do, but we don't know
> what a photographer would actually want to do."
>
> That this simple question even got to the point where people started
> questioning, and in some cases, judging, Aaron's decision to shoot
JPEG's
> ~in a specific situation~, is beyond my comprehension.
At the moment I know I'm only getting bits of threads in my in-box, the
list
seems to be a bit ragged again so I can only post answers to what I've
read. In
any case, based on the original question, Graywolfs answer seems the most
fitting, particularly given the responses from the original poster.
