[OM] Re: RAW

[Walt Wayman]

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.
 
Walt

--
"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
==============================================