And what would that prove?, I would have no idea what lengths he went to get them all to the quality of RAW converted jpegs would I? Nor would I know how many shots he took and what percentage had to be tossed out due to jpeg shooting problems would I? Too many things are unknown in that particular equation....
jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:22 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pixel peeping and looking for defects(wasRe:Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) Then you've not seen Aaron Reynolds' baseball photos. Quite exceptionally well done, actually. He only shoots JPEG at the ball park. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > Oh come on, you know as well as I that to get > the same results exposure wise with jpeg as doing RAW capture/RAW > processing it's nowhere near as easy or forgiving because you dont get > the extended recording range with jpeg captures as you do > with raw captures. When I say good results, I mean > as good as a processed RAW capture which is > what the thead is all about. Processing the RAW > files is time consuming, and shooting jpeg to > the same quality level as processeed RAW exposure wise is definately > more difficult than shooting RAW and correcting > in post processing. Its not easy no matter which > way you choose to do it to acheive best possible > quality. -- 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
