Quote:
|
I've never really understood why people shoot RAW+JPEG. When you use a program like lightroom you can import the raw and quickly convert the entire stream to jpeg with any sort of batch adjustment you might want.
|
That's a little like saying "I've never understood why people sit sweating and uncomfortable in their cars on hot days. When you drive an Audi you can just turn the climate control settings to keep you nice and cool, and can specify your preferred temperature which the car will maintain for you." - not everybody can afford expensive software like Lightroom, and not everybody can afford the spec of laptop that will run it. I'm on a fairly limited buudget, and my laptop is about 7 years old, was mid-spec at best at the time, and just about copes with Photoshop Elements 2.
That said - thanks for the tip about Instant Jpeg from RAW - I might have to give that a go next time I'm going to need to convert a high volume of images from one to the other. For the situation I described, however, downloading the images from my camera to my croaky old laptop and burning them straight to a CD in my hotel room while I got ready to go down for breakfast was about the quickest and easiest way to do it. Card storage space for two file formats was much less of an issue than wanting to spend time with all my friends at the wedding the day/night before.
My opinion on the RAW vs Jpeg debate was exactly that - my opinion, and was my answer to the initial question posed by this thread - "Why shoot in RAW????". I find that RAW works best for me. Other people find that Jpeg works best for them. They're not wrong, and nor am I. We're all taking photos, and we're all right.
Russ.