William Robb wrote: >From: "Mark Roberts" > >> It may be that some of the photographers who work in JPEG do so >> because >> they're long-time film users who aren't yet fully immersed in the >> digital process. Nothing wrong with that; what works, works. The end >> result is what they get paid for. >> >> I also strongly suspect that some of the people who *claim* to shoot >> only JPEG really shoot RAW and convert. ;-) > >There is a very strong get it right in camera mentality for >photographers on a time budget.
I'm thinking if I do any motorsports jobs next summer, it might be a good application for the K10D's RAW+JPEG shooting mode for just this reason. >On one off jobs, especially product >photography, RAW is a nice tool, though if the photographer knows what >he is doing with his lighting, jpegs are just fine a lot of the time. >Raw's advantage is the control over individual exposures, and it loses >all of it's advantage when several hundred essentially identical >exposures have to be made into jpegs to be sent to the printer. Like Santa photos, school portraits, etc. Anyone on the list doing the school photo thing? I'll bet that business has changed a lot over the years - in terms of people's expectations regarding turnaround time. >Good technique at the time of shooting is still better than trying to >apply a bunch of controls when it comes time to process the pictures. It >was true for film, it is still true with digital. The more skilled I get at using ACR and Photoshop, the more value I place on *not* using them (as much as possible). Some people thought digital would make split ND filters obsolete but I still carry and use mine. My goal is to have every RAW file come up in Adobe Bridge and not need any adjustment at all for conversion. It's an unattainable goal, but it's satisfying to move a little closer every time. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
