Yes. I've never shot jpeg, but I can see that it is the right way to go for some situations. One of these days I'll give it a try. 20,000 plus RAW and counting. Getting ready to try jpeg one of these days. Paul On Jul 2, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> Ditto. > > If I was shooting what Aaron or Cotty shoot on a daily basis, I'd be > shooting JPEG or RAW+JPEG. And probably just JPEG's. I shoot RAW > because > I have the time and I do extensive exposure correction at a minimum > (Mostly to preserve shadow detail by exposing to the right on the > histogram, which preserves more shadow detail than the correct > exposure, > but causes me to edit extensively in the RAW converter) > > -Adam > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> Well said. Several people here have demonstrated that one can be >> successful shooting jpegs. In addition to Aaron, whose baseball work >> is >> outstanding, I can think of Ken Waller and Cotty. I'm sure others have >> also done well working this way. >> Paul >> On Jul 2, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >> >> >>> You keep making these blanket statements. Have you seen Aaron's >>> work? >>> I >>> have, and it's quite good - better, in fact, for its purpose, than >>> the >>> work >>> of a lot of people here shooting RAW. >>> >>> JPEG's don't suck when used in an intelligent manner and for the >>> purpose >>> for which they're intended. Because it doesn't work for you doesn't >>> mean >>> they won't work, and work well, for someone else. >>> >>> Shel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> [Original Message] >>>> From: Jens Bladt >>>> >>>> >>>> JPEG's suck. The quality simply isn't good enough for what I need. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
