Xavier wrote: >Ah, > > >I have to concentrate more effort into RAW. > >Amazing :) Good Mornin' Xavier! Raw takes a little more work than jpegs ... but with programs like Lightroom (which I have not used, but is apparently very good) and Silkypix, which have good workflows, it is not too bad . And the flexibility and results are certainly worth it. Once I figured out RAW (it takes a bit to master it) I never went back to jpgs ... except, of course, those two days, in Paris, with you, when my backup drive failed, and I was fearful of having no way to store my shots ... until you helped find that inexpensive replacement. I figure about 1 minute or less, on average, per photo ... most less than that, a few take more time) to work on the good shots (the rest, I simply delete). Then, I batch develop them, so I can go and do something else, while they "develop" (get turned into .tif or .jpg files). This process (on my computer) takes about 30 seconds each, but by doing them as batches, I can go away while the computer does the hard work! Ideal, when you have 100+ photos to do! Some people (I think Philippe is one) record both jpg & RAW, using the RAW files, when needed, and the jpgs for "quick & dirty" shots. It seems to work fine, for them, though I prefer RAW only, as it gets more shots on a card! Play with the RAW files. I think you'll like the results. Cheers! --- David Young, Logan Lake, CANADA Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/ Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4 ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/