Honestly say I really doubt you will see any different between tiff and PS
11-12 level Jpeg compression, I can't in monitor even at 200% view, this is
especially true for large file.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Raw->print completely skips any step that could introduce artifacts --
> i.e.
> JPEG. If I need an interim file format, I use TIFF. Even the highest
> quality of JPEG introduces some loss.
>
> Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:34 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
>
>
>> Let's make sure we're differentiating between raw capture and JPEG
>> printing. I won't argue against raw capture as the best way to get all
>> the detail available nor that editing is best done with all the dynamic
>> range possible. That gives us the opportunity of compressing the range
>> and moving it up or down into what can be shown on paper.
>>
>> However, when it comes to printing the final result, the dynamic range
>> of a print is typically in the range of 5-6 stops. The printing process
>> is simply not capable of reproducing the tonal range that exists even in
>> the JPEG.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>> I aboslutely can. Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Can I at 4x6 or perhaps even 8x10? No, not likely.
>>>
>>> Can I at 24x36? Of course.
>>>
>>> Tom
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|