on 2011-09-28 00:26 Bob W wrote
Indeed. And there isn't necessarily any additional work involved in shooting JPEG. If you shoot raw and use something like Lightroom you can set Lightroom up so that it applies presets during the import which will produce something like you'd get from shooting JPEG, while retaining the raw data so you can go back and do some editing if you have accidentally shot a masterpiece.
i was amazed at what i'd lost shooting JPEG with the first shots from my K200d; i shot my brother's wedding in my childhood romping grounds, a beautiful foggy bay in Maine, then drove to the Bay of Fundy and spent days shooting in bright overcast; in truth i didn't understand exposure very well either, and yet i did get lots of keepers, but when i go back with my current knowledge i see adjustments that i just can't make
and that's with the k200d, which has only 11+ stops of dynamic range (vs. 8 for JPEG); if i had a K5 i'd be throwing away another two stops at least
but despite years of experience as a digital workflow consultant, getting set up with a RAW workflow was off-putting; it _is_ work to get started; once you get used to it, Aperture or Lightroom will actually reduce your workload (things like backups, generating versions and exporting downrezed versions are much easier), but you will also be more tempted to tweak, so unless you have a lot of discipline to treat your images like slide film, your time investment will probably go up, but it won't feel like work
and it comes around too — for me shooting RAW has helped a lot in improving my shooting technique
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
