On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:00:59 -0700, Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: >This isn't my experience. A friend of mine shoots for Fashion Wire (here's >one of his - >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040911/1889/fwd115b20040911jpg&e=41&ncid=), >he's been working events with anywhere from 20 to 50 other photographers >(he says half the job is elbowing and kicking to get the best position) and >he and all the other photographers are shooting jpg. I've heard this about >some sports photographers too. If properly set up, the highest jpg setting >can give as good a photo as RAW for the applications they're >doing. There's no time to process, not even enough time to download. > >For the band shots I do, I've switched to jpg - I don't have time to >process 100 shots for them. > >In the studio, where's there may be more time, that's different. I've tried JPG a few times, always with disappointment at the results. I you're happy with inferior images, or like the sports guys you mention you must shoot JPG, then go ahead and shoot JPG. I shoot JPG if I'm shooting for the web, otherwise I use Capture One and RAW always. I like having a big, fat 16 bit range of tones to manipulate. Never met an image that didn't get better with manipulation. (tweaking) -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com/ Standard Poodles for fun BMW motorcycle for pleasure
