Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: "Ali" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:17:34 -0000
It's a valid point, however please remember that he could always batch process his RAW images if time was such a big issue.
"nick" <nickjines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:qNWdnchUwrI5XPjaRVnyjwA@xxxxxxxxx
Heres a thought for all you people thinking that you should switch to RAW. My close friend who is a keen photographer always works with raw. I work with JPEG and think I'm generally careless and sloppy with my work. I'm quite jealous of his more scientific approach. After not having seen him for 6 months I went round for a visit and found him quite despondent about his photography. He had hundreds of raw images and no time to process them. Now he avoids taking more photos until what he calls his "workload" is done. "workload" meaning processing his raw images.
I'm still whizzing around taking loads of photos and enjoying my photography... Just how many people that work with raw will do so for more than 6 months before having had enough of spending endless nights in front of a computer fidling around with raw images that did'nt need any fiddling done to them?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Keith
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- References:
- RAW VS JPEG
- From: nick
- RAW VS JPEG
- Prev by Date: Re: scanning old negs
- Next by Date: Re: D80 histogram vs histogram on computer
- Previous by thread: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Next by thread: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
