I've seen a post that suggests that some art directors, publications,
etc. insist on RAW or TIFF and I can see that some photogs would be
unwilling to supply RAW files - but it's no real hassle to convert
files before handing over. It's amazingly bloated though. Haven't
shot TIFF since I had a 4mp Digilux 1.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 10/12/2007, at 4:24 AM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I agree. I don't even see TIF as a good storage option for the same
> reasons - massive, slow to open and slow to save. I suppose one could
> argue that it is an unchanging standard format that you would be able
> to access from nearly any program no matter the changes to psd or raw
> formats. Reluctance to use it sort of nullifies that argument though.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|