It does sound strange to use TIFF as the in-camera format. However,
for archiving I think it is the safest format in terms of future
compatibility. And with hard disc storage costing less than 20 cents
per GB (I picked up a LaCie 500 GB disc for 95 Euro this weekend),
the size of a TIFF file is a minor issue.
Nathan
On 9-dec-2007, at 18:24, 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.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On / December 9, 2007 CE, at 1:00 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>> Indeed but I still don't quite get it. The files are massive, (54 on
>> a 2gb card) unmanipulable, slow and the only advantage they have is
>> that they aren't lossy. Good for storage but.. Is there actually a
>> reason for them to exist in camera?
>> Andrew Fildes
>> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
Nathan Wajsman
nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
General photography:
http://www.nathanfoto.com
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.frozenlight.eu
Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|