[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: RAW

Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:49:15 -0400
Can you tell the difference between a 48 bit TIFF and a high quality 
JPEG... after it's printed?  My guess is no.  I don't think any 
printer/ink combo can reproduce the detail that's in the JPEG let alone 
the TIFF.  It makes sense to maintain all possible detail on an image 
that may undergo further editing but I don't think the final sharpened, 
printable image need be other than a JPEG.

Chuck Norcutt

jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>>>Perhaps the solution is just to shoot SHQ jpegs.  I just finished
>>>the fairly desultory article about RAW in Outdoor Photographer, in which
>>>they make the case that you really need to get exposure right to get the
>>>best from RAW.  Well, OK, then, but maybe I should just shoot really
>>>well-exposed jpegs and save a lot of post process effort.
> I can't see the logic to this either. The entire point of raw is to
> maximise the available detail and colour gamult for later processing. JPEG
> reduces the number of available colours as well as detail. I think who
> ever wrote the article belongs to the mp3 or mini disk sounds better than
> cd camp.
> I scan slide film in raw mode using the maxium bit depth possible. Adjust
> the black and white points, apply a custom made ICC to it, apply IR
> cleaning, adjust the gamma and then produce a 48 bit tiff set to adobe
> colour space for printing. I would never think about JPEG other than for
> email purposes!
> James
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================

List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz