>> I've heard of some big-time studio photogs who use medium format
>> digital in the studio and shoot JPEG. Given that these people probably
>> don't have the throughput demands that Bill does, I *suspect* that
>> part
>> of their reason is unspoken - a lack of familiarity/comfort with RAW
>> workflow - that said, it does seem to me like one of the applications
>> in which shooting JPEG is viable. Because you have total control of
>> the
>> lighting you can get the color balance right and it won't change on
>> you. And control of lighting means you can set up so you don't need
>> the
>> wider latitude of RAW.
>
> We could shoot RAW and batch process the whole lot to jpeg based on a
> camera RAW preset, but to my mind, that is essentially the same as
> shooting in camera jpegs.
Yes... for the 98% of the shots that don't need any adjustment.
For that 2% of the time when you do need adjustments, having the latitude
of lossless linear->log conversion, bayer interpolation, unsharpened,
white balance, and quantized-DCT (i.e. jpeg artifacts) is worth a lot.
Of course if you never make any mistakes shooting it's a moot
point.
I'm right now working on a 240 degree, 33-shot, 200 megapixel
panorama I took this summer after my brother and hiked to the top of a
mountain in Alaska. I like knowing that I've got the best my camera can
do at my disposal.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
