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
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Wajsman" <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is just ridiculous. You should go back to film if you are not prepared
>> to have an adequately sized computer for 2014 requirements.
>>
>> I have an image with proof, from my very first month of shooting digitial,
>> 10 years ago:
>>
>> http://www.frozenlight.eu/nathanfoto/paw/2004/2004_31alt1.jpg
>>
>> This is with a Canon 10D, my first digital camera. Due to lack of
>> knowledge,
>> and for “convenience”, I was shooting JPG.
>> After posting this among my PAWs for week 31 in 2004, I decided (based on
>> some suggestions) that it would be better in B&W. But when I went to
>> convert
>> it, ugly artifacts appeared. No matter what I did, I just could not get a
>> decent B&W conversion. I was using Photoshop at the time (don’t remember
>> the
>> version, but it was the current one at the time). I finally gave up on the
>> B&W but since that experience, I have never bothered shooting JPG. RAW only
>> for me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nathan
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
