Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Keith)
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:57:15 +0000
Ali <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Even better use Lightroom or Aperture and you work non-destructively
directly on the RAW image, with no jpeg or tiff duplicates clogging up
your storage.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- References:
- RAW VS JPEG
- From: nick
- Re: RAW VS JPEG
- From: Ali
- RAW VS JPEG
- Prev by Date: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Next by Date: Re: Traveling with DSLR & prime lens [non-zoom lens]
- Previous by thread: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Next by thread: Re: RAW VS JPEG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
