Subject: | Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images |
---|---|
From: | Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:24:22 -0400 |
And now you know that his bluff has been called. He is unable to answer the question. :-) Chuck Norcutt Ken Norton wrote: >> I'm not objecting your statement here but I would like to know in which way >> you see the big C's JPEG deficiency. >> > > > Do I need to? Isn't it, like totally common knowledge that the Canons have > to be shot in RAW mode in order to get anything better than 5x7" snapshot > quality? > > :) > > AG (believe nothing you read on the web) Schnozz -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] Nathan's PAD 11/08/2009: business winding down at the Mercado Central, Chuck Norcutt |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Question: Mirror and aperture pre-fire?, Brian Swale |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Ken Norton |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Ken Norton |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |