On Aug 6, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Shangara Singh wrote:
I think JPEG gets too much bad press at times. Full quality JPEGs are on par
with TIFFs and it's very easy to prove it in Photoshop by doing a difference
test.
True, but they are radically different from raw files which is really the discussion here. A few posts back you compared raw to neg and jpeg to a transparency. I think a more appropriate comparison is that the raw is the neg while the jpeg is the print. Would you send your film to the lab and tell them to just toss the negs and give you only the prints? That's essentially what you're doing when you shoot in camera jpegs. If processed properly, the prints may be great but if anything at all needs correcting its a heck of a lot better to be making those corrections using the original neg than by altering a print. Same is true for raw digital data.
Martin's point about Kodaks being designed around a raw file workflow is spot on. It's a completely opposite design philosophy from that employed by Nikon. Nikon's DLSRs have been optimized for a jpeg workflow. If that's your choice for a way to work, they'll run rings around Kodak. But if you want a raw workflow the Kodak cameras are far more efficient at getting the data onto the card. The buffer won't fill as fast and it clears quickly. Just the opposite with jpegs. Kodaks shoot jpegs at a snail's pace while the Nikons scream. Raw or JPEG is a major workflow factor to consider before laying out cash for a camera system.
Bob Smith
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
