Hi When you choose using jpegs, you compress in the shooting situation, you loose some of the scenery. No way back. This should only (IMHO) be used when storing caoasity uis an issue. You can allways compress in the computer. Buy a HUGE cf card. Or buy a portable storing device. Shoot RAW and do the editing on you PC.
Regards Jens -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Cycad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 18. januar 2004 20:46 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist-D - jpg, tiff or raw? ----- 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
