Without that information, what you have been told is of limited use because his creative choices may not apply to you, your equipment or your shooting style. The whole crux of my previous comment was not so much what this photographer does, but rather understanding the context as why he does so. I possibly could get the jpeg to work, but if it doesn't then I would have wasted my time and had to go back to the raw. If it is not right, or more likely the in-camera processing engine doesn't create an image that meets my expectations, then I will go to the raw image. If the lighting is right (I can achieve this 100% in studio shots), I have no issues at all going with jpegs.
I'm a raw + jpeg shooter and if the images are good enough, I will go straight the the jpegs. This too is a valid reason to not shoot raw. Note - this was a common complaint by Nikon users prior to the 2012 Adobe raw conversion engine. I have also heard complaints from a number of FujiFilm camera users that the raw converters from both Adobe and to a lesser extent, Capture One do not do not produce acceptable raw conversions. Again, if it is good enough for them, who am I to suggest anything different. This is no different than other photographers I know who exclusively process their image in Lightroom rather than going to a more advanced pixel based editor like Photoshop. Nicely said there is nothing wrong with this, so long as it satisfies their clients needs. In their case it, as they are event or wedding photographers this is a measure that saves them time. I wouldn't know about wondering about his knowledge, Manfred, but I do assume from his words that he no longer sees benefits to using RAW in his work.I know several commercial photographers who shoot only in jpeg.
0 kommentar(er)
