Even worse: Bud Light
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator
YNWA
On 03 Aug 2014, at 09:18, Philippe <philippe.amard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
