On 1/19/2011 10:25 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Chris, these were easy lighting situations so it is not surprising that the
> JPGs were good. But in general, shooting JPG only is like throwing your
> negatives away after having minilab prints made.
Weellll I agree with the sentiment, but technically it need not be that bad.
When I first got a film scanner, I was amazed at the tonal range available from
color negs. White skies on old prints
turned out to have blue sky and nice clouds, there was detail in shadows, and
so on.
Similar detail can certainly be lost in JPEGs compared to RAW. However, better
JPEG processors compress the ends of the
histogram, rather than simply letting them clip to black or white, as minilab
prints do. If one avoids blowing
highlights through overloading the sensor, a remarkably wide range of
brightness may be piled up at the top and bottom.
I always shoot RAW when it is available. Still, I recently bought a JPEG only
camera for its other features/qualities.
You may recall the good sized sample gallery I posted. I think it conclusively
shows that, with proper technique, both
in making the exposure and processing it, a considerably greater quality result
than found minilab prints is possible.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots>
For you, what you say may be true, given your personal preferences, rules,
equipment, referred subjects, technique, etc.
To generalize what you find to be true for you to every camera and user is, I
think, mistaken.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|