tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5111937667893091668.post2225142660364978865..comments2023-10-26T03:27:52.275-07:00Comments on Monterey John Photography - The Blog: RAW Jihad Rages On!Monterey Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13114195139480244636noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5111937667893091668.post-83387585391931583642007-03-04T15:31:00.000-08:002007-03-04T15:31:00.000-08:00Paul: I too rather spend time shooting, that's why...Paul: I too rather spend time shooting, that's why I shoot in raw: for example, figuring out on location, which is the correct white balance to use takes ages on the camera while it can be done in seconds with the raw file at home. And if you've tried shooting at night or indoors with artificial lighting, you know that the auto white balance on the camera doesn't do the trick.<BR/><BR/>MJ: not keeping the raw files, is like shooting film and not keeping the negatives (am I repeating myself?!?). ;-) Generating a jpg (or a tiff) out of the raw data, is developing a frame, whether the camera does it while you shoot, or whether you do it yourself at home.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: whatever works best for you, works best for you. I'm not saying raw is right, and jpg is wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5111937667893091668.post-64835390279559088472007-03-04T05:29:00.000-08:002007-03-04T05:29:00.000-08:00Way to go, MJ. All I have to say about raw is tha...Way to go, MJ. All I have to say about raw is that there is a lot of 'conventional wisdom' out there. And conventional wisdom is usually neither conventional, nor wisdom! :-)<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I'll stick with the JPG, math aside, if I can't tell the difference, there is no difference! I'd rather spend that extra time shooting instead of processing. Also, I believe, like Ken Rockwell, get it right the first time!Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00794079257866559509noreply@blogger.com