AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> I ask this question: Am I the only photographer in the world that
> has any interest in seeing this data?
Maybe you are. I haven't noticed anyone joining your chorus.
Or does it not matter anymore
> because we've now become conditioned to accept "wow, that's a pretty
> picture" as being sufficient?
It doesn't matter to me but not because the in-camera JPEG makes a
pretty picture. Since I shoot raw about 95% of the time I hardly know
what a 5D JPEG looks like let alone how all the modes (I don't even know
if that is the right word) alter it.
What about the high-end studio
> photograpers that shoot fashion/clothing/etc--I can't imagine them
> just accepting whatever the manufacturer says as being good enough.
> Nor are they going to hand-gig thousands of RAW files one-by-one to
> get things right.
Not being a high-end studio photographer I don't know how they operate
nor how they would handle thousands of images. But I do know how I
handle many hundreds of images. I try to keep the white balance in line
with the lighting conditions unless I'm trying to utilize the color of
the light. I then process my hundreds of raw files in batch mode using
"as shot" parameters. I preview the resulting JPEG's and throw about
2/3 of them away. The remainder usually have fair color and exposure
and those that don't will get a different treatment through the raw
converter. If there's something that someone wants to be large it gets
even more special treatment.
So, I don't think they hand-gig thousands of images anymore than I
hand-gig hundreds of images. But I also don't think they care one-whit
about the response curves for in-camera JPEG's. They'll shoot raw,
cull, and on the small number that justify it, turn the raw image into
whatever they want. That is, they'll have their assistants turn it into
whatever they want.
Chuck Norcutt
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|