Tom C wrote: > Sorry, you're just not making sense to me. First you refer to and complain > explicitly about the *istD compared to other cameras and now you're saying > you're referring to the image and the raw converter.
Because it was supposedly taken with that camera. Of course, you can do the same with any other good picture taken with the *ist D. > And unless I'm missing something here, you're doing it with an image that > you retrieved from the web, not took yourself, Because it was supposedly taken with that camera. Of course, you can do the same with any other good picture taken with the *ist D. > and have manipulated after > that to prove some point about pixels worth of data... am I wrong? If so, > please let me know. I just resized it down and then resized it up, to see a possible data loss (which didn't happen, and that's the interesting point). No other manipulation. I'm not interested in making tricks. I'm only interested in understanding something more. Of course, I can do something wrong and I always welcome useful suggestions. Dario Bonazza
