On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Dan wrote:
> > At 5:42 PM -0500 1/5/2009, Sam Macomber wrote: >> On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Dan wrote: >>> At 1:55 PM -0800 1/5/2009, MIKO .. wrote: >>>> The photo industry believes that the highest quality version of an >>>> image is its RAW version, when available. >>> >>> Each company has its own variant of RAW. There will be no standard >>> any time soon. >>> TIFF is better. >> >> From a pro perspective image quality of a TIFF is not good enough, >> RAW is much better. > > Never heard that before. In what way is TIFF lacking? I've always heard if you convert an image from one format into another, you probably lose something (loosely (not lossless) speaking). Isn't RAW a first format for some cameras, so TIFF would be a first conversion? Is that where people might suspect loss of quality? I doubt there's any noticeable difference, unless you're counting bits or something ... I haven't read this entire enormous thread, but has anyone mentioned storing the data files in cyberspace? Let "them" worry about keeping the "equipment" ... archival? Bill Connelly artsite: http://mysite.verizon.net/moonstoneartstudio myspace: http://www.myspace.com/moonstoneartstudio --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
