> Ian, I have _zero_ experience of shooting RAW. However, in my experience as > a photographer and as a connoisseur of photography, exposure and color > balance play a minor role in "most" photography. I did say that if they > matter to you then RAW is the way to go. But then you will be in a minority > - - nothing wrong with that: all geniuses are in a minority of one
Dear Shangarah, I think I can give you a phylosophical yet practical "edge" to this discussion , which will give you the chance to think twice about this. Look a t it this way, if by any chance some of your assignments will not have ANY extra value, for resale as stock, for some personal project of yours, etc it is well ok to stay in jpeg, given the easy way your post-production life can be with this format. Hence all news photographers, events ,sports and the like ,shooting on assignment for newpapers ,magazines, and the like, with the added handicapp that being workers under contract, they are loosing copyright to their images, then this is absolutely ok to stay in jpeg. Should you have a second thought about some files, which may be subject to upsizing for large format printing, gallery exhibitions, sending it back to film,or resale as stock images for agencies, then you are imposing a limit on your own work by shooting jpeg. You have to think about shooting in jpeg for basically "disposable" images. Catalogs, weddings,everyday news, corporate portraits, local sports news and events are some of those files that for obvious reasons may never see the sunlight again, afer a first and only delivery to a client and jpeg is just perfect for this . Keeping back up CD's of this material is cheap given the big number of compressed files you can put in a CD. I am working on the jpegs from camera by saving a new document, thus keeping the original untagged and unprocessed file just as it comes from the camera, as back up, eliminating the problem asociated with recompression each time I open and close a file. I started shooting Raw only, and now I mix, based mainly on this code. Remember that just the same you can obtain a jpeg file from the raw data if delivery of full sized tiff's is difficult, questionable or impossible. But then you can keep your Raw file on a CD for later and obtain even better results each time, as software for the handling of this RAW data improves rapidly . Software to improve on jpeg quality will not show up, even if such thing could exist in theory. Even if it does, you add more time to post processing, loosing speed, just the same You are a PS guy and you know Thomas Knoll and his combo are working on the Raw data Plugin for Photoshop ,which may solve many situations regarding Raw procesing, speed being one of them and most likely the major limiting factor in choosing such format, knowing ahead that much more time will be involved in your workflow. Both options work well for different type of works. I would be much more curious as to what can be the advantage of shooting in tiff format, something I truy disagree with for all the technical reasons you can think of. Happy (raw) shooting All the best. Jorge Parra APA/ASMP www.jorgeparra.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
