Practical experience, not partical experience. Why is it that I can only see mistakes like that after I post the comment?
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:06 AM Subject: Re: Digital Delays? > Well, take that jpeg and save it as another jpeg, then take that new jpeg > and save it as another, do it about five times. Now get back to me on how > jpegs are just fine. > > Each time your image is saved as a jpeg data is lost. How much data depends > on how much it is compressed. To me and others this kind of defeats the > purpose of digital images, which is you can make multiple generations > without losing data. > > If you are never going to manipulate (edit) that jpeg it will stay as good > as it starts out, but that first copy is not as good as the raw file or a > tiff would be, though it may be acceptable for your use, if you don't mind > your 6 mp camera giving you 4 mp images. > > This is not said from theory (though theory says the same thing), it is > partical experience. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:08 AM > Subject: Re: Digital Delays? > > > > I've noticed the same thing on scans. A good quality JPEG > > is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of > > a lot smaller. I archive in JPEG. > > > > Cotty wrote, in part: > > > > > > A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all > > > printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the difference. > > > >
