[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: RAW

Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:28:45 +0000
I know I should stay out of this discussion since I'm a Luddite and don't do 
digital, but I see the premise for the RAW argument as being the same as my 
rationale for always shooting with the slowest and finest-grained film possible 
under the conditions I'm faced with.  You can't cook at home the rabbit you 
shot at and missed in the field.

"Anything more than 500 yards from 
the car just isn't photogenic." -- 
Edward Weston

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I aboslutely can. Absolutely.
> Can I at 4x6 or perhaps even 8x10?  No, not likely.
> Can I at 24x36?  Of course.
> Tom
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:49 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
> > 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
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx

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