I received a newsletter from SB's Steve Bedell in which he ststes that shooting every image in raw is something that just increases the amount of time processing the image, adding to workflow w/o adding to the quality of the image.
When is the most advantageous to shoot raw? In mixed lighting situations as I suspect or not?
Dear Ronk,
I shoot RAW for two reasons. One is when I want the maximum resolution obtainable from digital (very sharp texture or fine detail -- though even 35mm film still wins hands down for this, just as 120 thrashes 35mm). The other is for long brightness ranges. In both cases I post-process with DxO, an amazing product, to get TIFF files.
But normally I am in control of the lighting (in the studio) or just don't need the extra quality, and shooting high-quality JPEG saves so much time and effort that there's no contest.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
I'm an older fellow, it's hard to keep up with all the new technology but I won't give up. Could you let me know what DxO means.
As John Paul Jones said, never give up that ship! DXO is a company name out of France that develops image processing systems. They do things like automatic exposure correction in-camera, lens distortion correction for specific lenses and other amazing stuff.
Since I never know before hand where an image will go, I always shoot RAW. With the memory cards getting faster all the time, I can wait 11 seconds (currently). Plus, I don't mind spending the time to go through the images and making corrections as necessary. I have a lot of this process automated any way (with actions in Photoshop CS).
John Fagerberg
![]()
| Cameras Other | Techniques Site Features | Blogs Archived Blogs Refreshers | More Articles | Columns eCommerce | News Resources |


.jpg)

.jpg)
