I agree with Rob. The PS CS RAW converter yields images that are far
more printable than the best jpegs or tiffs that the *istD can produce.
Pro Canon users tell me the same thing. I imagine it has something to
do with the programming that achieves the actual upsizing. John Francis
and others, including Rob, can probably explain this in scientific
terms. i cannot, but I know what I like, and the 12 x18 prints that can
be produced from PS CS converted RAW files show very fine detail and
good sharpness. In fact, it was a pro Canon shooter's demonstration of
PS CS that convinced me to buy an *istD. Before that, I was highly
skeptical that a 6 megapixel camera could meet my needs. Prior to
buying the *istD, I was shooting 6x7 for all my important work. Now,
I'm doing fine producing images for magazines and stock with the *istD.
My clients, who are knowledgeable art directors and technicians haven't
complained, although I'm sure they can tell that these are digital
files. In fact, they've been quite complimentary as of late. (I'm
delivering files at about the same 50 meg size as before.) RAW is the
only way to go if you're serious about digital photography, and PS CS
seems to be the best RAW conversion solution for Pentax *istD files.
Paul
On Sep 10, 2004, at 9:16 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 10 Sep 2004 at 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote:
#3 is just wrong because RAW doesn't "squeeze out thelast bits from
your camera for some extremely large prints". It has virtually no
effect on resolution of detail or potential print size; It *does*
effect lattitude, which has benefits at any print size.
I have to disagree here (and Paul Stenquist can probably back me up)
as over-
sampling using the PS CS extraction utility does yield more detail
than any
other 1:1 RAW utility I've used.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
