As much as "the market" wants to work with JPEGs, I just can't understand why. JPEG was meant to be a destination format, not a working format. Even at the inception of the JPEG format, we still had TIFF, bitmap and other formats. Photoshop, et. al, have always worked with images in some form of TIFF/bitmap and only converted to JPEG upon final output. While it has always been possible to take JPEG as input, convert to the "internal" format, edit then output to JPEG again, I think it was only meant to be the means to an end. Not an end, by itself. Even though these format conversions take place seamlessly, there will always be some information loss.
Thus, I think that people who demand to work in JPEG are selling themselves short.
Anybody who wants quality images should always work in the best format they have available and only convert to the destination format when their work is completed. Even then, they should still retain their work in the original format after the product has been delivered. I can't see any reason not to work with your images in RAW or DNG format or, at least TIFF/bitmap.
This is just my basic understanding of how things work. I am sure some of you who understand things better will correct me where I have gone wrong. However, I think my basic premise still stands: Always work in the highest quality format you have available then convert to the destination at the final step.
I refuse to believe that "JPEG = Picture." My response is, "JPEG = Crap."
If you want quality, use something else. If you want to work in an all-digital work flow, that's fine. If you want to shoot film then scan to digital, that's fine, too. Let the demands of your business guide your work flow. A daily, weekly or other recurring publication might very well demand that your work flow be predominantly digital but any graphic designer who is worth his salt should understand the various digital formats and he should understand their strengths and weaknesses. He should know how to do his job in the best way possible and he should not conform to the lowest common denominator just because he think it is somehow "easier."
When I hear people say, "Graphic designers want JPEG," I am incredulous. I just can't believe that anybody who takes pride in their work and wants to do it well would sacrifice quality just to conform to the lowest common denominator. The technology we have today is advanced enough that even the home hobbyist should be able to work on some form of RAW, DNG or TIFF/bitmap format.
These days, any "idiot" who can push a mouse and make pretty pictures on a computer screen thinks he is a "Graphic Designer" but that's just not so. It might look easy but it's not. People who really know the ins and outs of image making should know how to do their job in the best way possible. These days, with the technology we have, it should be a trivial thing to use RAW/DNG/TIFF. Most computers and software available today understand how. If not, it should only be a matter of installing the right plug-ins or updating to a new version of your software.
If people are not willing to do that, it doesn't matter what kind of camera they use. Neither film or the latest whiz-bang digital gizmos will help them. As far as I am concerned, they will always be stuck in the mud.
Thus, I think that people who demand to work in JPEG are selling themselves short.
Anybody who wants quality images should always work in the best format they have available and only convert to the destination format when their work is completed. Even then, they should still retain their work in the original format after the product has been delivered. I can't see any reason not to work with your images in RAW or DNG format or, at least TIFF/bitmap.
This is just my basic understanding of how things work. I am sure some of you who understand things better will correct me where I have gone wrong. However, I think my basic premise still stands: Always work in the highest quality format you have available then convert to the destination at the final step.
I refuse to believe that "JPEG = Picture." My response is, "JPEG = Crap."
If you want quality, use something else. If you want to work in an all-digital work flow, that's fine. If you want to shoot film then scan to digital, that's fine, too. Let the demands of your business guide your work flow. A daily, weekly or other recurring publication might very well demand that your work flow be predominantly digital but any graphic designer who is worth his salt should understand the various digital formats and he should understand their strengths and weaknesses. He should know how to do his job in the best way possible and he should not conform to the lowest common denominator just because he think it is somehow "easier."
When I hear people say, "Graphic designers want JPEG," I am incredulous. I just can't believe that anybody who takes pride in their work and wants to do it well would sacrifice quality just to conform to the lowest common denominator. The technology we have today is advanced enough that even the home hobbyist should be able to work on some form of RAW, DNG or TIFF/bitmap format.
These days, any "idiot" who can push a mouse and make pretty pictures on a computer screen thinks he is a "Graphic Designer" but that's just not so. It might look easy but it's not. People who really know the ins and outs of image making should know how to do their job in the best way possible. These days, with the technology we have, it should be a trivial thing to use RAW/DNG/TIFF. Most computers and software available today understand how. If not, it should only be a matter of installing the right plug-ins or updating to a new version of your software.
If people are not willing to do that, it doesn't matter what kind of camera they use. Neither film or the latest whiz-bang digital gizmos will help them. As far as I am concerned, they will always be stuck in the mud.
