I shoot all my weddings in Raw and have for quite a long time. If you use the proper kind of batch tool like Capture One for raw conversion, I find it much faster than working in jpg because of the group assignment of settings. So you get the assurance of raw latitude and a speedy workflow. If you had control of the lighting situation like in a studio or something, that would be a different scenario entirely.
So for what Bill or Aaron are doing, jpg works great. For what I am doing with weddings, raw with a good batch processor works better for me. -- Bruce Friday, December 8, 2006, 12:11:43 PM, you wrote: PS> Yes, for that kind of work, jpeg is better. I did my 300 or so wedding PS> pics in RAW, but I don't do this often. If I was trying to earn money PS> shooting things like weddings, schools or Santa pics, I would be PS> shooting jpeg as well. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE RIGHT! :-)) PS> Paul PS> On Dec 8, 2006, at 1:47 PM, William Robb wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark Roberts" >> Subject: Re: K10D WB system observations >> >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I put two schools to bed last week. Several hundreds of jpegs had to be >> knocked down to one shot per child, sorted to the appropriate >> directories for package actions, and then sent to the printer. >> It's pretty mind numbing work, and it is a type of photography where in >> camera processing is the way to go. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
