Jpg?????????

[agentlossing]

I'd have to disagree... I find my normal size screen and more powerful editing software on my computer to be a lot more comfortable. Additionally, I would imagine doing PP on the camera defeats the purpose of jpegs for many.

Obviously if you need the greater power of the desktop for aspects of the image then there's not a replacement for it... or if you're that in love with your computer chair! All I am saying is that there is a use-case for this alternative.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

There is a line of thinking that says, "Set up your options so that the SOOC jpg is right. Who wants to spend time in post-production?"

OK, for some, but not for me. I have NEVER had a "keeper" that did not involve some adjustment. Further, I've recovered keepers from files with exposure mistakes or wild contrasts that would not have been salvagable from jpgs.

I now shoot RAW only.

 

[peterm1]

There is a line of thinking that says, "Set up your options so that the SOOC jpg is right. Who wants to spend time in post-production?"

OK, for some, but not for me. I have NEVER had a "keeper" that did not involve some adjustment. Further, I've recovered keepers from files with exposure mistakes or wild contrasts that would not have been salvagable from jpgs.

I now shoot RAW only.

I could not agree more.

 

[David Hughes]

I can't help thinking that is is easy to set up most digital cameras so that the photo's will be as you want them (say) 95 times out of 100. The odd 5 being repairs or fine adjustments.


We've so many choices when setting the camera for all time that I can't see the problem; especially when digital means we can take a dozen shots one after the other and see the results on a monitor immediately and so get to the set-up we want.


There's a bit of give and take here; I usually decide the odd shot needs spot metering or else bracketing but very, very seldom does it need RAW.


Regards, David