Qkano <snapper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > <<< > 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 > > jpeg is better than raw because you can save more images per card. > Is that not enough reason? Yep. And that explains why nobody uses 120 since 35mm came out -- those dinky 12-exposure rolls (okay, maybe 15). As for those absurd sheet-film holders, that only have *one* sheet per side -- well, I mean, really! > RAW files take longer to load, using capture one etc adds another > step to the workflow ... and even people with good eyesight can't > tell the difference if they stand far enough back. And longer to write, so it affects your burst size, making it harder to get all the photos you need to ensure a perfect one. > RAW is for suckers who feel the need to cling on to every last bit > of pseudo-detail (a hangover from the olden days of film). In > reality, jpeg is fine for all reasonable purposes - if you think you > need more bits of resolution, you are fooling yourself. Absolutely. Actually, I've been thinking of getting a pad of paper and a pencil; I think a person could learn to get down the key lines of a subject fairly quickly, and the extra resolution of full photo-realism doesn't really add that much. I think this might save me quite a bit on equipment cost and post-processing time. > 8 bit good: 16 bit bad -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
