Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Okiewan, post: 1082976, member: 16119"] I shoot RAW exclusively. Rarely do I use multi-frame capture even when I shoot moto. Raw files are larger. Good cams don't slow down except for sports shots, ie; fires about 3 frames per second in raw, 5 making just jpg with the 20D. For everything else, you can't tell the difference, except of course the number of images that will fit on a card. RAW is the equiv. of a film camera's negitive, everything the camera see's is captured the way it sees it. White balance, exposure, etc., can be set after the fact. None of the camera's sharpening, contrast, saturation is used when shooting raw, all processing is done by you after the fact. You have WAY more flexibility when post processing, you can save marginal shots that you can't in jpg. Contrast, saturation, mid-tone contrast, etc., is all set before the image is saved to the compressed jpg format. Think of it in old school (film) terms. You developed film or used a polaroid, which made all the developing decision for you... you took whatever it gave you. In the darkroom with film you had MUCH more control over the resulting print. If you are a snapper (point and shoot, snap-shot type pics) and don't want to spend time "developing" your images, it's best to just stay with JPG. There are free RAW converters out there, for the PC a popular one is RawShooter. ([url]http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter.asp[/url]) see the bottom of the page. Photoshop CS2 also comes with ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). There are MANY more. [/QUOTE]

Verification: Which ocean is California closest to?