What you are doing with RAW is fine for maximizing what you got but don't equate Mbytes with Mpixels and that it is the same as shooting higher resolution. If it was, cameras/sensors would be rated in Mbytes not Mpixels. Raw maximizes what you have but jpegged images smaller in file size but from much higher resolution sources ( way more Mpixels ) can look much better than uncompressed from way less Mpixels so I wouldn't make the blanket statement that RAW/uncompressed storage is the only way to go for serious digital photography. A 36 mpixel 8 bit image compressed 3x via jpeg looks a lot sharper than an uncompressed 6 mpixel 16 bit image even though they would both be same 36 Mpixels. The reason is the jpegging is very efficient, the file compression rate is higher than the detail loss with jpegging. So yes RAW is the way to go to maximize what you have, but going to higher resolution files even jpegs smaller in mBytes can trump a lower resolution image no matter how much you polish it and bloat its file size. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW vs. JPG and CF size 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 >
