Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: A couple of interesting things at ShootSmarter.

Subject: [OM] Re: A couple of interesting things at ShootSmarter.
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:48:48 -0400
JPEG does work fine in the studio where you have complete control of the 
light.  But Will also pushes JPEG for weddings and events because of the 
workflow requirements on large numbers of images.  His point is that you 
*should* be in control of the exposure at all times.

Fine in theory but I haven't reached that degree of certainty in my own 
work.  And I make plenty of exposure errors, especially with flash.  The 
workflow I have settled on is, I believe, the best one for me and I 
don't find it onerous at all.  At any important event (especially those 
with brides and grooms dressed in white and black) I always shoot raw 
and usually leave the white balance set on auto unless I'm shooting pure 
flash indoors.  I also try to work in some shots of the WhiBal now and 
then but often forget.  When I get back to the computer I download the 
images and do a batch conversion of everything with "as shot" 
parameters.  The vast majority of the resulting JPEGs will be fine.  But 
there will be some problem shots (mostly due to exposure, some due to 
white balance) that need the raw file to recover what should have been.

Works for me.  And as long as the computer can crunch away on raw file 
conversions while I'm doing something else the conversion time doesn't 
bother me.

Chuck Norcutt

Moose wrote:

> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 
>>Will Crockett is probably the world's greatest proponent of shooting 
>>JPEG instead of raw.  He thinks the workflow costs for pro's to shoot 
>>raw is too heavy a price to pay.  
> 
> I've thought, and posted, before that JPEG should be fine in any 
> environment where you have control over the lighting. If you can keep 
> the dynamic range of lighting within what JPEG can record and get 
> exposures correct, there shouldn't be any need for RAW.
> 
> But that's mostly theory on my part, as I don't do that kind of 
> shooting. You should know more about that than I.
> 
> I do know that under a lot of low contrast lighting situations outdoors, 
> the histogram makes clear that 8 bits would have been enough for the 
> dynamic range. I'm just not interested in switching back and forth and 
> appreciate the extra latitude of RAW when I mess up exposure. And I'm 
> going to do any post editing in 16-bit anyway.
> 
> Moose
> 
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz