Plenty of users are quite happy taking JPEGs and for most cases they are very good. But if you do shoot it wrong you have less scope for correction, because the Camera has 'processed' the image.

With RAW you do have to work at them to get the best out of the image, but there is always more latitude with a RAW file and you can achieve ultimate quality, using either Camera RAW or C1. The file does act as a digital negative and also has the ultimate flexibility.

In the end if you are happy with JPEGs then use them, personally I prefer RAW and thereby get peace of mind that when I am producing Fine Art Prints they are coming from the best original.

In film terms rather than Neg vs Tranny it is more like 35mm vs APS - A JPEG will have artifacts, sometimes it doesn't matter and they can't be seen on a print, but the more you want to manipulate the image the more chance you have of degradation.

I like being able to open a RAW file to 144MB in PS and knowing the degradation is minimal compared with uprezzing a JPEG to that size.

I bet trying that would tax the most ardent JPEGer!

regards
Richard Earney

--
http://www.method-photo.co.uk

===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE

Reply via email to