It was 6/8/04 3:26 pm, when Bob Croxford wrote: > On 6 Aug 2004, at 09:17, Shangara Singh wrote: > >> Frank >> >> The first question you have to ask yourself is do you really need to >> shoot in raw mode? For lots of situations, JPEG mode is faster and can >> deliver equally good results. > > Dear Shangara > > You have said this before and I challenged you then.
Maybe you did, lots of people seem to for no apparent reason. Was it you who said they could spot the difference BUT at 200% view in Photoshop? However, most people view images on the Web (on varying monitors and viewing conditions) or print at arms length or on posters at more than a few leg's length. I still maintain " For lots of situations, JPEG mode is faster and can deliver equally good results." Please read the above "carefully" and do your own tests. If you can prove me wrong, I will eat my camera. If you cannot, you must hand over your Kodak SLR, including all the lenses, to me! > What basis do you > have for your statement? I, and many others, have found the following:- > > 1/ C1 processes a 1ds RAW file much better than PS CS. How does that negate shooting in JPEG mode? > 2/ This means that I, and many others, can see the difference in RAW > processing between two software programmes. Output to print? Can your clients see the difference? Can their customers see the difference? Have you output the two files and tested them on the discerning public? > 3/ We are willing to pay the �299 cost of the extra software. Bully for you! <g> > 4/ If we can tell the difference between two RAW conversions we can > certainly tell the difference between a C1 RAW and a Jpeg. If you shot in JPEG mode you wouldn't be able to because you wouldn't have a Raw file to compare with! Not sure what you are trying to prove, Bob. I have never said Camera Raw produces better raw files than C1 but that's what you seem to want to prove. > 5/ A Jpeg is a Tiff file compressed. I think the patents say otherwise, correct me if I am wrong. > If you can't be bothered with a > Tiff file how do you get a Jpeg, or how do you open a Jpeg and NOT get > a Tiff? I can't see the advantage of writing a 34mb TIFF to a CF card when the quality from a full quality JPEG is the same (in the real world), but the file size is only 2mb approx. You just have to weigh up the storage, transfer and opening times. Fairly easy to see very quickly which format is better. > The reason people shoot so much is because they are striving for a > better image. It is a sign of a good photographer that they know which > direction to go with when creating an image. As a general rule more > frames equals better pictures. Don't believe that. Sorry. > Those who shoot few frames are often > lacking in the critical ability to see that the image can be improved. > I have shot landscapes for many years using a motor drive. Still do. I shoot few frames. I'm happy to pitch my critical ability with anyone on this list. <g> In fact, I would argue that people who shoot fewer frames have a higher critical ability because they use their imagination rather than relying on a "hard" image to base their judgements (personally, I think there's room for both, as long as your clients are happy to foot the bill). Some people have to sit at a keyboard when they compose while others have to be walking in the forest. As long as the composition is memorable, who cares whether you did it at the keyboard or in the forest? Shangara Singh. __________________________________________________ :: Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) Photoshop CS :: Photoshop CS Essential Tips || Photoshop Glossary (eBooks) :: Examaids for Adobe & Macromedia Certification :: http://www.examaids.com || http://www.photoshopace.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
