On Apr 15, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
I'm with Cesar on this one. RAW may be technically superior, but
it's a pain to organize and work with. I am just not fussy enough,
I guess.
I suppose if I were in the business of producing work for pay I
might have a different attitude. But who knows?
I disagree with you and Cesar. RAW format processing is more
complicated than JPEG and consumes more storage space, but it's not
so much more complex as to be difficult. I much prefer the fact that
it offsets some of the fussier aspects of controlling image
processing to some time other than when I'm taking the picture.
What is necessary to use RAW format effectively for a lot of photos
is a sensible and efficient process for moving the files into your
computer and operating the RAW conversion process. That's called a
workflow. *ANY* process that you do that with is a workflow, the
concept is not restricted to RAW files or processing a thousand
pictures at a time.
When I was still shooting both RAW and JPEG, I was struck by the fact
that it took me about the same amount of time and effort to manage
the JPEG files as it did the RAW files and I was losing photos
because of JPEG limitations, that's why I no longer use JPEGs very
much at all. When I do shoot JPEGs nowadays, I find I spend more time
editing them than I do with the RAW files because I have to do more
work on a selective basis, due to the narrower dynamic range and
fragility of editing on [EMAIL PROTECTED] data.
All that said, whatever works to make the photos you want is the
right way. It's the picture that counts in the end, no one but
another photographer cares how it was made...
Godfrey
