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
==============================================
|