----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:35 PM Subject: Re: *ist-D - jpg, tiff or raw?
> "When I take the same image using the three modes, then compare the > results (having converted the raw file using Photo Laboratory on default > settings) it seems that the TIFF file has had somewhat too much > sharpening, while the jpg seems a bit undersharpened?" > > Images saved as .jpg will lose some detail. Is this what you are seeing? > Previous postings had suggested that the TIFF and JPG files were very similar, so I was surprised when they looked quite different at high magnifications - there was no obvious evidence of compression artifacts, just less detail in the jpg - as if less sharpening had been applied. I've now tested the RAW converter as different settings and it appears that the default sharpening is roughly optimal for my photos. I haven't yet tested the jpg output from the converter - I'm saving as 16-bit TIFFs and modifying the levels in Photoshop. This looks like a good route, if time-consuming, until we get an improved PhotoLab. > "Also, the Photo Lab RAW converter seems very clunky, almost like a > first attempt with no frills" > > That's exactly what it is. We hope it will be improved. You shouldn't > use it as your sole image editor, or for anything other than setting > white balance in raw and converting to tiff. > > Joe > > I do very much like the results, though, and I love the immediacy. I'm trying to carry the istD around whenever I can, if only to justify the expense. Although this is my third digital camera (Olympus D-340L, Nikon 950), it's the first that has delivered near-film quality images. Unfortunately, in my other life as a molecular biologist I don't much opportunity to get out at this time of year (as least, not in daylight - I go to work in the dark and cycle home in the dark). Andy
