Subject: | Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images |
---|---|
From: | Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:19:37 -0500 |
> > And now you know that his bluff has been called. He is unable to answer > the question. :-) > That's not it at all. I'm just not into picking fights today. I could quote you from a couple posts ago about how we (you, not me) need to shoot RAW to get images of sufficient quality for a 9x12 print. I was VERY specific on how to maximize JPEG image quality and be able to survive without resorting to the RAW. AG -- _________________________________________________________________ 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, Dawid Loubser |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Nathan's PAD 11/08/2009: business winding down at the Mercado Central, Ken Norton |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Chuck Norcutt |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] ( OM ) Definition of digital images, Chuck Norcutt |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |