On 22/5/05, Bob Sullivan, discombobulated, unleashed: >That's refreshing to hear...shoot jpg's and don't meddle with them!
Well, actually they need a little meddling. Typically I do a quick Curves and a USM. Half the time the exposure is spot on, and the other half I just bring it up a tad. >My major fear on going digital is that I will become more of a >computer geek than I am. Not very appealing... Well you say that but I agree. Same here. >Are your jpg's notably better than from the D *ist or DS because of >the Canon body? Didn't we trash Pentax's conversion algorithms? Not sure. I can choose a max of ten different levels of compression on the shot jpegs for each of four different physical size images. Large, Med 1, Med 2, Small. I tend to use just about the least amount of compression possible on the largest file size possible in Jpeg, and that gives me anywhere between a 4Mb and a 6 Mb image, typically just over 5 Mb. When I first messed around, I shot the same scene in RAW and best quality jpeg. I put each through PS and printed out. There was absolutely no difference. I make prints, so why shoot RAW aside from the ability to pull out detail in highlights and shadows? If I can nail the exposure at the taking stage, seems a good deal. I have a 2Gb Lexar 80x and I can cram over 350 jpegs on it (ISO 200). RAW, and that figure drops to 179. If I'm making prints, seems a fair deal. If I get some tricky light, I'll bracket. I'm going to give RAW more of a try but really I need to sort out a faster Mac first. Sure, if National Geo cam knocking on my door and wanted half a dozen pages on shooting from the hip ;-) I'd shoot RAW. But they aren't, and I'm not. If anyone would like a RAW file and a best quality jpeg of the same scene to poke and prod with an expert eye, I'm happy to send them. To me, it's just pics :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
