Hi Aaron, First off, I understand your position, and feel that your choice of shooting JPEG is a good choice for you, in the situation that you're shooting.
To answer your question: I don't think it would be very time consuming. Last night I just started to read the chapter in Bruce Fraser's book on how to process RAW files quickly, and while I've not tried the technique yet, I get the impression that it wouldn't take but a few moments. The way I understand it is that you can set up a profile (which should be easy for you as the light in which you shoot never changes) and the adjustments are then all made automatically as the files appear in Photoshop's browser. IOW, it appears that it wouldn't take any more time to make the appropriate adjustments than it would take for the files to load and be seen in the browser - that's in Photoshop CS. I imagine that in CS2 Bridge would replace the browser, the technique would be similar, as would the time. IOW, it can all be done automagically. Please forgive any vagueness in my explanation, as I haven't fully read the chapter yet, it was about 3:00am when I skimmed it, nor have I personally tried the technique at this time. However, I would suggest that the conversion can be pretty quick. I suppose someone who as actually tried the technique can give a more detailed explanation and a more specific idea of the time involved. You might want to get Fraser's book to see just what's possible when using RAW, even if shooting RAW is of no benefit to you when shooting the baseball pics. All that said, there may not be any benefit to shooting RAW in the particular circumstance you've described. But, knowing your way around RAW files and processing can only be helpful in the long term. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Aaron Reynolds > No matter how streamlined your workflow, 800 RAW images will take a > long time to process. Do you not agree? Do you not agree in a > situation where the light can never change unless there's a blackout, > considering all images must be uploaded immediately after the event, > that RAW is not a sensible choice?
