When does shooting RAW help?

<p>When I first got my D70 five years ago, I used to always shoot in RAW (NEF). I soon abandoned this and moved to high res JPEGs as my shooting mode, because:<br /> <br /> • I preferred using iPhoto to Nikon's PicturePerfect software to import and catalog my shots<br /> <br /> • RAW files were slow to work with in 2004<br /> <br /> • I didn't notice a difference in quality when printing, since I never printed larger than 8 X 10-- and I used an online lab that required baseline JPEGs<br>

<br /> Has anything changed in 2009? Is there a compelling reason to shoot RAW files again? I am an amateur who shoots simply for the fun of it. I mostly share my shots with friends on the Web at 72 DPI JPEG-- and occasionally print family memories.</p>

<p>I'm wondering if the technology of 2009 will give me any more of an advantage shooting RAW. Thanks in advance for any insights.</p>

 

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael, the "official" word is that raw is for pros, experts, you can't do "real" photography without it, blah blah blah.<br>

For what you're doing, JPEG "FINE" is the best way to go, especially if you don't do much editing. I've hung in galleries using native JPEG, with excellent results.<br>

And you can not print a NEF file, it has to be converted to something.<br>

As you point out, many print outfits want JPEG files, so all that work you do in NEF has to be bumped down to jpeg anyway.<br>

There are some interesting techical reasons why people stay in the NEF domain, frankly I convert from NEF to TIFF immediately, assuming I shoot NEF at all, which is rare.<br>

Stay with JPEGs, NEF can suck all the fun out of your hobby.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Michael - <br>

A *lot* has changed since 2004 in terms of software. Adobe Lightroom appears to make working with RAW files no different than working with JPEG files (at least for me).<br>

The "prevailing wisdom" that RAW is for pros, might be a little misleading. RAW is very useful when the photos are really important. Because RAW delays all the post processing to the computer, and retains the most bit depth, there's a lot more opportunity to fix up marginal shots. This is especially true if shooting under unusual lighting conditions - either color or back lighting etc. Photos tend to be really important to pros because they get paid, but photos can be equally or more important to hobbyists as well.<br>

I think in terms of photography, one must be better with the camera when shooting JPEG than when shooting RAW. I dream of the day that I can shoot jpeg, and bring the photos back home and not have to touch them. Unfortunately, I'm not there yet!<br>

Mike</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael,</p>

 

<p>The short version is that JPEG is preferred when you wish to use the images straight out of the

camera with little or no post-processing, and RAW is preferred when you know you’ll be

doing anything more than minimal post-processing.</p>

 

<p>The downside to JPEG is that, if you take a picture that <em>needs</em> post-processing,

you’re stuck. The downside to RAW is that <em>every</em> image must receive post-processing.</p>

 

<p>Most cameras these days allow you to shoot simultaneous RAW and JPEG. The best of both

worlds, right? Well, except for the fact that it uses a lot more card space and slows down the camera

somewhat. That, though, is mitigated somewhat by the latest batch of high-capacity high-speed

cards.</p>

 

<p>Choose the scenario that best fits your workflow. As I understand, photographers for <i>Sports

Illustrated</i> shoot JPEG, and I’m certain photographers for <i>National Geographic</i>

shoot mostly RAW.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>When does shooting raw help? When you don't get everything perfect in camera. If everything is perfect when you hit the shutter button, jpeg will be just fine.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I still make mistakes. I like being able to correct after the fact. I also preferred shooting negative film to chromes for the same reason.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p >The two main draw backs to recording in RAW format are; file size and the need to use raw converter image-processing software of some sort. That being said, the benefits to raw are so much greater. Considerations for white balance become a thing of the past. Most 2 or 3 stop under exposures and 1 or 2 stop overexposures can be brought to correct exposure. Adjustments to temperature, clarity and vibrance, adding sharpening and color corrections and so on can all be taken care of more affectively in RAW. With batch processing the need to make adjustments to each photo is eliminated in many cases as well.</p>

<p >The big question for most is; do you want to accept whatever the camera offers up… or do you want control over your final image!</p>

<p>For me, shooting RAW helps always. I basically never shoot anything but RAW. For a few very simple reasons:<br>

- I can non-destructively edit a lot of things in my pictures. And I have more room to edit them (12-bits files versus 8-bits); also editing a white balance on a RAW file usually leaves better quality that changing a white point on a JPEG.<br>

- It's the highest quality my camera can keep. With JPEG out of the camera you already start with throwing out data. My idea is that loosing data is always an option, but keeping it is an option only once.<br>

- RAW converters get better. The pictures of my D50 look better with Capture NX2/ViewNX than they used to (with crappy PictureProject); also Adobe's RAW converter made (huge) steps forward etc. The RAW file is simply keeping the negative, allowing for a different print to be made later on. And possibly a better print as the software to render a RAW improves.<br>

- A soft cushion for having a wrong camera setting. It happens every now and then. Recently shot a whole bunch of pictures with a wrong white balance setting. With RAW, no harm done. With JPEG, it could have caused pictures to seriously degrade since the WB was way way off. I still rather get it right, but I know I do not have to bother with some settings too much.</p>

<p>The downsides are not that big, to me, in todays world:<br>

- They take more space. Well, hard drive space, CF cards etc. are all very cheap nowadays.<br>

- They must all be developed/edited. Yes and no, if I use ViewNX or Capture NX, I can output JPEGs in batch. They will not look much different from the JPEGs the camera would have produced, since it will use the camera settings to convert them. Doesn't take all that long on a decently modern machine, and essentially involves no editing at all. Only a few clicks to get the process started.<br>

- You need a state of the art PC/Mac. Well, not all that true. Any normal machine on the market now should have no issues with 6 to 12 MPixel RAW files. By the way, latest iPhoto should handle RAW-files too, should that still be your prefered tool.</p>

<p>If you're happy with your results, by all means stick to JPEG. But many people prefer RAW for very decent reasons. It's not a "pro" versus "amateur" thing at all. Out of camera JPEG to me remains similar to getting prints and throwing away the negatives. Sometimes OK, but not when I'm remotely serious about a photo.</p>

<p >The two main draw backs to recording in RAW format are; file size and the need to use raw converter image-processing software of some sort. That being said, the benefits to raw are so much greater. Considerations for white balance become a thing of the past. Most 2 or 3 stop under exposures and 1 or 2 stop overexposures can be brought to correct exposure. Adjustments to temperature, clarity and vibrance, adding sharpening and color corrections and so on can all be taken care of more affectively in RAW. With batch processing the need to make adjustments to each photo is eliminated in many cases as well.</p>

<p >The big question for most is; do you want to accept whatever the camera offers up… or do you want control over your final image!</p>

<p>For me, shooting RAW helps always. I basically never shoot anything but RAW. For a few very simple reasons:<br>

- I can non-destructively edit a lot of things in my pictures. And I have more room to edit them (12-bits files versus 8-bits); also editing a white balance on a RAW file usually leaves better quality that changing a white point on a JPEG.<br>

- It's the highest quality my camera can keep. With JPEG out of the camera you already start with throwing out data. My idea is that loosing data is always an option, but keeping it is an option only once.<br>

- RAW converters get better. The pictures of my D50 look better with Capture NX2/ViewNX than they used to (with crappy PictureProject); also Adobe's RAW converter made (huge) steps forward etc. The RAW file is simply keeping the negative, allowing for a different print to be made later on. And possibly a better print as the software to render a RAW improves.<br>

- A soft cushion for having a wrong camera setting. It happens every now and then. Recently shot a whole bunch of pictures with a wrong white balance setting. With RAW, no harm done. With JPEG, it could have caused pictures to seriously degrade since the WB was way way off. I still rather get it right, but I know I do not have to bother with some settings too much.</p>

<p>The downsides are not that big, to me, in todays world:<br>

- They take more space. Well, hard drive space, CF cards etc. are all very cheap nowadays.<br>

- They must all be developed/edited. Yes and no, if I use ViewNX or Capture NX, I can output JPEGs in batch. They will not look much different from the JPEGs the camera would have produced, since it will use the camera settings to convert them. Doesn't take all that long on a decently modern machine, and essentially involves no editing at all. Only a few clicks to get the process started.<br>

- You need a state of the art PC/Mac. Well, not all that true. Any normal machine on the market now should have no issues with 6 to 12 MPixel RAW files. By the way, latest iPhoto should handle RAW-files too, should that still be your prefered tool.</p>

<p>If you're happy with your results, by all means stick to JPEG. But many people prefer RAW for very decent reasons. It's not a "pro" versus "amateur" thing at all. Out of camera JPEG to me remains similar to getting prints and throwing away the negatives. Sometimes OK, but not when I'm remotely serious about a photo.</p>

<p>For me, shooting RAW helps always. I basically never shoot anything but RAW. For a few very simple reasons:<br>

- I can non-destructively edit a lot of things in my pictures. And I have more room to edit them (12-bits files versus 8-bits); also editing a white balance on a RAW file usually leaves better quality that changing a white point on a JPEG.<br>

- It's the highest quality my camera can keep. With JPEG out of the camera you already start with throwing out data. My idea is that loosing data is always an option, but keeping it is an option only once.<br>

- RAW converters get better. The pictures of my D50 look better with Capture NX2/ViewNX than they used to (with crappy PictureProject); also Adobe's RAW converter made (huge) steps forward etc. The RAW file is simply keeping the negative, allowing for a different print to be made later on. And possibly a better print as the software to render a RAW improves.<br>

- A soft cushion for having a wrong camera setting. It happens every now and then. Recently shot a whole bunch of pictures with a wrong white balance setting. With RAW, no harm done. With JPEG, it could have caused pictures to seriously degrade since the WB was way way off. I still rather get it right, but I know I do not have to bother with some settings too much.</p>

<p>The downsides are not that big, to me, in todays world:<br>

- They take more space. Well, hard drive space, CF cards etc. are all very cheap nowadays.<br>

- They must all be developed/edited. Yes and no, if I use ViewNX or Capture NX, I can output JPEGs in batch. They will not look much different from the JPEGs the camera would have produced, since it will use the camera settings to convert them. Doesn't take all that long on a decently modern machine, and essentially involves no editing at all. Only a few clicks to get the process started.<br>

- You need a state of the art PC/Mac. Well, not all that true. Any normal machine on the market now should have no issues with 6 to 12 MPixel RAW files. By the way, latest iPhoto should handle RAW-files too, should that still be your prefered tool.</p>

<p>If you're happy with your results, by all means stick to JPEG. But many people prefer RAW for very decent reasons. It's not a "pro" versus "amateur" thing at all. Out of camera JPEG to me remains similar to getting prints and throwing away the negatives. Sometimes OK, but not when I'm remotely serious about a photo.</p>

<p>For me, shooting RAW helps always. I basically never shoot anything but RAW. For a few very simple reasons:<br>

- I can non-destructively edit a lot of things in my pictures. And I have more room to edit them (12-bits files versus 8-bits); also editing a white balance on a RAW file usually leaves better quality that changing a white point on a JPEG.<br>

- It's the highest quality my camera can keep. With JPEG out of the camera you already start with throwing out data. My idea is that loosing data is always an option, but keeping it is an option only once.<br>

- RAW converters get better. The pictures of my D50 look better with Capture NX2/ViewNX than they used to (with crappy PictureProject); also Adobe's RAW converter made (huge) steps forward etc. The RAW file is simply keeping the negative, allowing for a different print to be made later on. And possibly a better print as the software to render a RAW improves.<br>

- A soft cushion for having a wrong camera setting. It happens every now and then. Recently shot a whole bunch of pictures with a wrong white balance setting. With RAW, no harm done. With JPEG, it could have caused pictures to seriously degrade since the WB was way way off. I still rather get it right, but I know I do not have to bother with some settings too much.</p>

<p>The downsides are not that big, to me, in todays world:<br>

- They take more space. Well, hard drive space, CF cards etc. are all very cheap nowadays.<br>

- They must all be developed/edited. Yes and no, if I use ViewNX or Capture NX, I can output JPEGs in batch. They will not look much different from the JPEGs the camera would have produced, since it will use the camera settings to convert them. Doesn't take all that long on a decently modern machine, and essentially involves no editing at all. Only a few clicks to get the process started.<br>

- You need a state of the art PC/Mac. Well, not all that true. Any normal machine on the market now should have no issues with 6 to 12 MPixel RAW files. By the way, latest iPhoto should handle RAW-files too, should that still be your prefered tool.</p>

<p>If you're happy with your results, by all means stick to JPEG. But many people prefer RAW for very decent reasons. It's not a "pro" versus "amateur" thing at all. Out of camera JPEG to me remains similar to getting prints and throwing away the negatives. Sometimes OK, but not when I'm remotely serious about a photo.</p>

<p>Sorry for the multiple posts, p.net is having an off-day it seems (server-wise)</p>

<p>Shooting raw should not be regarded as "damage control" for salvaging poor exposures. It is the best way to preserve fine gradation in large expanses of same or similar colors such as blue skies, and and delicate transitions between colors such as in skies at sunset. If you shoot raw and maximum quality JPEG simultaneously and examine these areas closely you will see some differences.</p>

<p>There may be significant differences between shooting JPEGs in the camera and preparing JPEGs from raw files. Depending on certain variables the two may not be identical. With the above conditions I described - blue skies, sunsets - I can prepare JPEGs from raw files in editing and preserve those fine gradations and subtle transitions. When I shoot the same scenes directly to JPEG these delicate differences are lost. My camera does not produce JPEGs that equal those I create myself from raw files.</p>

<p>Compare these photos side by side in separate browser windows/tabs:<br /> <a href="../photo/8391568&size=lg">Test photo, 12/12/08 lunar event, prepped from NEF</a> <br /> <a href="../photo/8391466&size=lg">Test photo, 12/12/08 lunar event, prepped from JPEG</a></p>

<p>If you don't see these types of differences when comparing your in-camera JPEGs and raw files used to prep JPEGs in an external photo editor, then you may not benefit from shooting raw.</p>

<p>In some - even many - circumstances maximum quality JPEGs are good enough for certain purposes. Few differences will be apparent. I often shoot JPEG only for candid photos and casual events, especially when I don't plan to do any editing but will just burn the photos to CD or upload them to a photo sharing site without any modifications.</p>

<p>Digital cameras give us options to choose from. It's up to us to decide which format is best for a given situation.</p>

<p>Thanks! Since compact flash memory is cheap-- and my trusty iPhoto + Photoshop combination handles RAW just fine, I'm going to start shooting RAW to see if it makes a real difference for the types of shooting I do. I also carry a Canon point & shoot in my pocket for those moments when I don't happen to have a DSLR.<br /> <br /> If RAW really helps me do corrections and tweaks more easily, I might just have to upgrade my point & shoot to a new Canon S90-- just because it shoots RAW.</p>

<p>as you probably have read or seen or heard there are many reasons to shoot raw or jpeg, BUT IMAGE QUALITY IS NOT ONE OF THEM. the reason people shoot raw is raw's ability to pp, using the converter or photoshop. for a lot of users the shoot raw because they want to use the pc and work on the images. for them it is fun and enjoyable. for me i have been using computers since 1978 and long since got over any silly idea of working the pc being fun. to me it is the same enjoymeny as root canal. then there is the group that shoots raw because they have to. raw is the easiest roiute to the good image. why? simply because the image was not shot well enough in the field with the camera.<br>

in other words, the decision to shoot raw or jpeg is not which is better but depends on your shooting ability. what are you giving the pc to work with interms of image quality? my images come from the field 95%(100% on a good day) correct in terms of of exposure and wb. i spend maybe 30-40 seconds per shot sharpening and very minor touchup on each image. if i spend over a minute(not hdr or panoramas) on an image then i know i messed up in the field, usually i will delte the image rather then pp it. i will simply go to the next image. there has been many who say that raw can save an image that is 2 stops over or under exposed, true. but my question is why did the shooter messup when he took the image to get it 2 stop off in exposure. you have got great metering systems and an after shot lcd that shows you the histogram of what you just took. how could an image come to the pc that far off in exposure? todays dslrs are just too good. i went on the usa west in august 09 and took 543 images using 2 dslrs. of the 543 how many were off in exposure? zero.<br>

the dslr jpeg is plenty able to make very high quality images that are every bit as good as any raw that comes from that camera. during the august trip at carlbad caverns and antelope canyon i took raw+jpeg. of those raw how many got used over the raw? one. the jpegs were better. why did i shoot raw+jpeg? becasue i knew i probably would not be coming back, and i wanted a hedge against the unknown lighting. then there is the issue of is the dslr properly setup to take the good high quality jpeg? my 2 dslrs are. i spent 2+hours on each setting them up. or is the raw shooter simply comparing the factory setting jpeg, as determined by some engineer in japan, and using that to compare them to the raw image. if yes then the comparison is between what the dslr is doing as a jpeg to the raw, as opposed to what the dslr can do.<br>

this is not to say the raw has no uses. if confronted with unknown or mixed lighting and i need the good image without a retake then i will shoot raw+jpeg. a wedding would be a perfect example of this. if i ever shoot another wedding with all the mixed lights, and i have no intention of ever shooting more weddings, then i would shoot raw+jpeg without thinking about it. but for any other situation i will stick with jpeg. since there is no difference in quality.<br>

it should be noted that i spent 32yrs shooting film slides. in the beginning with the slides i threwout at least 95% of all i shot, sometimes 100%. over time i got better. at the end of the 32yrs i was getingnear the 95-100% right and had no throwout interms of exposure. that shooting habit carried over to my digital shooting. when i switched to digital is imply used the same shooting style and the joegs were fine. BUT, i was used to this after 32yrs. i hear all the time that the raw has a dr that is greater than jpoeg, fine. but why is this such extreme importance. all my slides were shot with a film that had a dr of maybe 4+ stops. even the jpeg has more dr than the slide film. and over a 100 or more yrs there were a awful lot of images that apeared in magazines that were slide film and they looked very good.<br>

i, and many others, simply believe and shoot as though pping does not exist. and we give to the pc, except for shrapening images, that need no pp work. so, michael h, make your decision on jpoeg vs raw on how well you shoot your own images.</p>

<p>If you like the results of your JPEGs and don't need to postprocess them to get what you're after, it's a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you have a scene that is going to take some postprocessing to get what you're after (dodging, burning, Curves manipulations), the question becomes "Do I want to perform these adjustments on an 8-bit JPEG file or a 12- or 14-bit RAW file?" The high-bit files will take a lot more tweaking without evidence of posterization, once you've converted them to 8 bits to output for printing. </p>

<p>No disagreement from me - if you can get photos out of the camera at the level of quality you need without hitting the PC, by all means, do it.<br>

I think the main message here is that if your photos start looking good after RAW+post processing, don't give up on getting things good straight out of the camera - there are lots of benefits to do this. <br>

It just takes time (...and I'm still working on it myself!).<br>

BTW I'm shooting 100% manual (which increases the number photos with screwed up exposures). </p>

 

<p>Personally I always shoot in RAW regardless of we're talking work or snapping pics of the family, dog etc for fun. RAW allows me more control and the end result, for me, are better images. I don't like shooting jpgs since too much control of the image is handed over to the camera. Also, a lot of what I shoot has to be RAW for work and that certainly influences me.<br /> <br /> But if all you do is photographing for fun and you're happy with your workflow with jpgs and happy with how the photos come out and work for your needs why change?</p>

<p>I was wondering if the “only incompetent fools who don’t know how to expose an

image shoot RAW” trolls were going to make an appearance. Apparently, they have.</p>

 

<p>If you’re shooting classic documentary photography in scenes without excessive

contrast, sure. But if your goal is anything else (especially “fine art”), or if it’s a

high-contrast scene, RAW makes possible things that simply aren’t otherwise.</p>

 

<p>One of said trolls even admitted that, when one shoots RAW, one can recover an image over-

or under-exposed by up to two stops. I agree (with caveats), and it should therefore be obvious that

RAW gives one an additional four stops of dynamic range over JPEG. If that’s not sufficient

reason alone to shoot RAW (when the situation dictates), I don’t know what is. In this case,

the incompetent shooter would be the one who insisted that JPEG was “good

enough” or went to the bother of HDR because of either ignorance of the functioning of his

tools or a perverted sort of pig-headed quasi-traditionalism. It would be comparable incompetence to the sports shooter who shot RAW instead of JPEG because his images kept coming out underexposed.</p>

 

<p>JPEG has its place. RAW has its place. Neither is a substitute for ignorance or lack of ability,

and a good photographer will choose whichever is most appropriate <em>for that photograph.</em>

Many photographers will only shoot one or a limited range of types of photographs and thus will

(wisely) only ever shoot the one format or the other, but that doesn’t mean that their own personal

choice will work for everybody else.</p>

 

<p>Mastery of one’s tools is essential to mastery of one’s craft, and both are

essential to mastery of one’s art.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>