"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:I_2_a.123485$4UE.76901@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> That's what I thought.
>
>
What is it about some who when disagreed with must insult the understanding
or intelligence of the person who disagrees with them.

I fully understand the "concept" of RAW date. I also understand the concept
of working with up to 6 clients a day with between 70 and 100 image each.
These images must be shown to each client for their selection and purchase.
To be lazy at the camera and have to spend the time to correct approximately
350 images every damn day in order to provide the client with an image that
"looks good" would be just plain stupid.

I also understand the concept of getting the best image in the camera to
start with. It's amazing the number of folks using film who will brag about
their "spot on" exposures and have no realization that the image they see on
the printed paper is the result of a darn good lab tech correcting their
screwups.

Do as you will but I will continue to expose the image correctly in the
camera because while I understand the "concept" of RAW date I also
understand the "concept" of correct exposure using either film and digital.
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress