Tim Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: >For most other situations jpg will be more than >adequate provided care is taken with camera settings. It does not >necessarily result in a lower quality image and I can point to many examples >of this. I think that the answer to Marc's question is that jpg images will >provide the quality he is looking for in reportage work and I would be happy >to get together with you here Marc and go through some examples of each so >you can judge for yourself. You bring the beer....seriously.
Well, I like a 16 bit TIF file for printing. I can't think of any other use except a web image, and that doesn't really count in quality. I like keeping all the highlights I can get too. I like tweaking everything after shooting, with no loss in quality. >nb: disclaimer - I am using the 1Ds and have not seen 10D jpg images so >everything I have written could be rubbish. I'll be testing a 10D shortly >for possible backup/travel use. I think everything appies to both cameras. Of course you can get a better JPG because of extra res, but RAW in both does produce a better image. I always have strived to maximize my quality output. Perhaps with the 10D I have to worry more about quality output. Like I said, I have some JPG files here that would have been keepers if they were shot in RAW. Some herons that are just a tad overexposed. No amount of PS fiddling can bring back the upper tonal range of them. I don't want that to happen again. For my application there is no choice. We each have to decide what's best for us of course. I really dislike camera tweaking also. I'm not the kind of guy who ignores basics like exposure. I do shoot like I'm shooting a slide. But gaining the extra stop or two of tonal range is important to me. I use it as a safety factor. Interesting I have found that a white bird in a dark scene needs minus one stop exposure. If I shoot it that way, the bird's highlights are retained perfectly. So I could shoot a JPG this way and be fine. But, big but, the shadows would now be one stop lower in an already dark scene. With RAW I can shoot that extra stop, pull the highlights back in, and retain more shadow area details. All without breaking up the histogram or gaining noise in any tones. At ISO 400 and up I am worried about noise in shadow areas, it's a killer. By the way, Capture One LE does do adjustable digital noise reduction and banding suppression. The noise reduction is one of it's best features. In an already low noise camera, I reduce it even more. The other day I was forced to shoot at ISO 3200. I tested converting using fileviewer and got pretty darned noisy files. I did it in C1LE and got almost no noise. I don't work for them by the way, just a very happy customer. Although to be honest, 3200 is not a great image to blow up, noise is there. I try and stick to 400 and 800 if I must. Be there are times I either go higher or get no good shot. In any case I can get noise free 400 images and very very low noise 800 images. Jim Davis Nature Photography http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
