[OM] Re: RAW

[jking]

> 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.
>

For me the issue is archiving. For that I want the best quality possible
for possible later "adjusting". What you get out of a JPEG depends upon
the amount of compression. For me the detail issue is less of a problem
than the colour compression.
The experiments I did with JPEG tended to reduce subtle colour changes
into a single uniform colour or bands of uniform colour e.g. sky, clouds
etc. For me I have the harddisk space and memory to handle 48 bit tiffs
with ease and durn them to DVD.
it does seem a little paradoxical to use a JPEG that throws away some
sharpness and detail and then sharpen it rather than print from the tiff.
But I am lucky - I teach computer science and can justify a powerful PC.
For those with less powerful machines I can see how a JPEG would be
attractive. My tiffs are alightly under 200 MB each!




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