William Robb wrote: >From: "Paul Stenquist" > >>And I don't understand why anyone would want to shoot jpegs. > >Wants don't always enter into it. >I need to be able to take a card out of the camera and put it into my >printer and make prints. Several hundred prints at a time, and they have >to be off the printer packaged and out the door within a couple of hours >of being shot. >For us, RAW is not only not an option, we would be foolish to bother >trying. >Instead, we exercise our control at the time of shooting, by not varying >the lighting conditions and adjusting things to allow us to do what we >need to do in lab to maintain our production values, while giving us the >throughput speeds we require.
I've heard of some big-time studio photogs who use medium format digital in the studio and shoot JPEG. Given that these people probably don't have the throughput demands that Bill does, I *suspect* that part of their reason is unspoken - a lack of familiarity/comfort with RAW workflow - that said, it does seem to me like one of the applications in which shooting JPEG is viable. Because you have total control of the lighting you can get the color balance right and it won't change on you. And control of lighting means you can set up so you don't need the wider latitude of RAW. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
