Agreed. But that doesn't preclude shooting RAW for most subjects. It's still better when you get it right in camera. Yet you have more options for fine-tuning tweaks and interpolation. Paul On Dec 8, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
> What he said. > > Kenneth Waller > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: K10D WB system observations > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark Roberts" >> Subject: Re: K10D WB system observations >> >> >> >>> It may be that some of the photographers who work in JPEG do so >>> because >>> they're long-time film users who aren't yet fully immersed in the >>> digital process. Nothing wrong with that; what works, works. The end >>> result is what they get paid for. >>> >>> I also strongly suspect that some of the people who *claim* to shoot >>> only JPEG really shoot RAW and convert. ;-) >> >> There is a very strong get it right in camera mentality for >> photographers on a time budget. On one off jobs, especially product >> photography, RAW is a nice tool, though if the photographer knows what >> he is doing with his lighting, jpegs are just fine a lot of the time. >> Raw's advantage is the control over individual exposures, and it loses >> all of it's advantage when several hundred essentially identical >> exposures have to be made into jpegs to be sent to the printer. >> Good technique at the time of shooting is still better than trying to >> apply a bunch of controls when it comes time to process the pictures. >> It >> was true for film, it is still true with digital. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
