Oh come on, you know as well as I that to get the same results exposure wise with jpeg as doing RAW capture/RAW processing it's nowhere near as easy or forgiving because you dont get the extended recording range with jpeg captures as you do with raw captures. When I say good results, I mean as good as a processed RAW capture which is what the thead is all about. Processing the RAW files is time consuming, and shooting jpeg to the same quality level as processeed RAW exposure wise is definately more difficult than shooting RAW and correcting in post processing. Its not easy no matter which way you choose to do it to acheive best possible quality. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re:Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) Then you and I shoot differently. I can get very consistent results shooting jpeg. I did a test yesterday, because I have an assignment where I'll have to shoot jpeg and turn over unprocessed files. I shot in a variety of conitions -- backlit, cross lit, low light, bright light. The vast majority of my exposures where right on. When I did all my car shoots on transparency film, I rarely missed a shot. Yes, it takes some thinking and some care, but it's not all that difficult. Hell, all these little old ladies are running around with their point and shoots getting good jpeg results. Can't be too hard. Paul Paul On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:28 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > nope, as I just posted, if you shoot jpeg > you have to be REAL careful with the exposure > or you wont get as good a results as with > film and this is even more work than RAW processing is. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:09 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: > Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) > > > You can shoot jpeg and drop them off at a lab for processing, and > some high-end labs now do RAW as well. It's the same equation as > before. Those who will settle for someone else's work shoot jpeg and > drop the card off at a lab. Those who wish to do their own, shoot > RAW. I wouldn't have wanted someone else processing my BW film any > more than I want someone else to process my digital images. What's > more, very few photographers process every RAW image they shoot. When > I shoot recreationally, I probably process only about 10%. The rest > can continue to live as DNG files until I either decide to discard > them or revisit them. When I shoot an event, I use the same > parameters for a number of shots, and I can process them quickly. My > photographic world is about the same as it was with film. > Paul > On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:55 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> I don't completely agree. Sure it's fun to tweek an occasional really >> favorite image to perfection, but when you have to do dozens, >> hundreds, thousands of them it just gets old pretty quick. I know >> when > >> I now shoot a 2GB card of RAW (about 180 images ) , I dread having to >> do all the image processing, and >> I have only had the camera a few months... >> >> And the really sad part is with >> digital, you are pretty much on your own, you cant drop >> your RAW images at a local lab and have them digitally processed for >> you even if you are willing to pay a reasonable fee like you still >> can > >> with film. Maybe this will change in the future or RAW processing >> automation software will improve, but for now IT SUCKS! >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> David Savage >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 10:43 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: >> Fullframelensesand the K10D, CA anyone?) >> >> >> Personally I always liked the darkroom aspect of photography. And the >> digital equivalent is no different. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave >> >> >> On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Digital SLRS/photography is also a "pain in the ass" in >>> some KEY ways. For good quality, you still have to "process" your >>> RAW >>> images. This is digital's "dirty little secret". I say its actually >>> much easier to go shoot some color film, drop it off at a lab, and >>> get nicely exposed, sharp prints. No, its >>> not free like digital is, but if you actually value >>> your time like your job, its probably as cheap or cheaper >>> than shooting digital IF that's all you want >>> or need. >>> jco >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- > 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
