Digital BW, The Print

It's a half-baked justification of the fairly decent decision to shoot 
jpg for someone who shoots a lot and doesn't post-process much.

The example of they guy who shot a game with a 256MB card isn't a a good 
example for him, as it's a 'how multiple quality settings saved me from 
my own stupidity' example rather than a condemnation of RAW.

-Adam



Tom Baker wrote:

> Sorry, but Rockwells theories seem pretty half baked.  And, very 
> biased, for whatever reasons.
>
> Tom Baker
>
> Peter Johngren <pjohngren@...> wrote:
>
> Ken -
>
> So you actually shoot RAW? Check out Ken Rockwell's
> article at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
> titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First
> Time
> ". I never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions
> at the time of taking the picture. Ken makes a solid
> case for doing it this way. I am getting excellent
> results with my D-70 shooting jpeg's and having the
> camera do a little sharpening and saturation
> enhancement - which it does on the full RAW output
> before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.
>
> Peter
>
> --- Ken Carney wrote:
>
> Well, true to a degree. With silver or pt/pd or gum
> dichro or Zia
> or whatever, you need to expose and develop for the
> medium. Me, I'll take
> my DSLR (now finally with a 16mm "35" equivalent) and
> raw files, or 35mm
> film cameras and scanners, Photoshop, and accept
> flexibility as the
> trade-off. Free, free at last.
>
> --Ken
>