Damn good argument...
Thanks, John. I would encourage you to read this article for a different point of view: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htmI used to shoot raw, but then after not being able to tell any difference in a print that originated as raw vs. one that originated as JPEG, I quickly dropped the raw. All theory aside, JPEG delivers equivalent quality for prints up to about 30x40 " prints. The largest that I've had printed from a JPG is 16x20 and it was flawless. Anything about that is just a waste of time for me and all mathematical theory. :-)Regarding, the deterioration of the JPG: It is true that JPG is a lossy storage algorithm; however, in my workflow, the JPG is the original and is never written. Opening the file has no affect on it. Any file that want to change is saved as a .PSD file and then subsequent copies are made and saved as JPGs of various sizes.I know that this is a big 'religious' war with people on both sides believing what they are saying. My approach works for me and is more practical for me. I can have beautiful prints from JPGs, put so many more of them on the disk, copy them to the disk much faster, and have overall less hassle.Finally, regarding the ability to adjust colors, etc. I can do everything that I need to in JPG. My job is to get it right the first time. :-)So, anyway, that's why I use JPG, because I see absolutely, positively, no reason to use raw. It offers no advantage, from my point of view."Steps off of soapbox"
2/28/2007 3:53 PM
As Jack Benny would have said, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking!"