Alternatively, on the hand of a good photographer, JPEG is fine French food.
It require no or little seasoning but not everyone like it.
RAW is uncooked meat, it can be great or terrible, depends on how you
process it, just suit your taste.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe" <philippe.amard@xxxxxx>
JPEG is the Mac Donald of photography
Or is it Budweiser?
Amities
Philippe
Le 1 août 2014 à 13:59, Jez Cunningham <jez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
I think the raw preachers have already got most of us sitting in the
choir,
while a few others stand outside with their fingers in their ears singing
la-la-la. Conversion just doesn't seem likely.
Jez
On 1 August 2014 08:18, C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I had shot JPEG only for a long peroid of time with my E10, cost was the
major reason. It was early 2001 to early 2003 when the price of a small
capacity memory card was just like a new DC today. With the 64MB
Smartmedia,
sometimes I even have to shoot at low quality JPEG.
In order to get more room for adjustment, I set the camera to low
contrast.
Also, I carefully expose the scenes and adjust color temp during
shooting.
At 2003 when I got a Canon 10D I started to shoot RAW but sometime still
shoot JPEG only as the cost of CF was still very expensive. Honestly say,
I
don't think JPEG only does not work. Of course, with the low memory cost
today, I don't see a reason not to shoot RAW.
Consider Brian had paid $600 for a kitchen mixer tap (the cost of an i7
here
for me), I believe the real cost is more on the learning curve of a new
computer/OS and RAW converter/editor. These may look easy for some people
but not for everyone.
C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|