burkphoto wrote:
Oh really? Is that why whole, multi-billion dollar portrait companies make tens of millions of portraits every year, EXCLUSIVELY in JPEG mode? Is that why they spend millions of dollars on proprietary ...
Sorry, but whenever I see evidence of FROzen minded photographers, I have to rant. Use the right tool for the job!
Burkphoto is dead on! I spent a decade and a half doing this type of work. Transitioning from film to digital midway through. Doing sports I would do one, sometimes two gigs five or six days a week. With film (negative film with its built in latitude) I would just send off the the unprocessed rolls to the studio from each job. But with digital, I had to transfer the images to disk before mailing them off. There was no time for post processing! Everything was shot as Jpeg only (my earlier DSLR's had just one slot), and the exposure had to be on the mark!
When I started, wedding photographers mostly used 400 ISO negative film and over exposed, taking advantage of the greater latitude in that direction. Going digital required a little experimentation, but it worked out. I was lucky because I had shot a lot of transparency film and didn't have as much of a learning curve. (Some of the older wedding guys shot everything with two strobes at about the same distance at f/11 and relied on Igor - yes, our lab guy was named Igor - to adjust density in the print phase. I think most of them retired before going digital.)