He didn't say *istD, he just said "serious digital photography". Big difference.
Secondly, I would much rather have access to BETTER file, and an 8 bit one, even jpegged, with a smaller file size can be signifigantly better if it has much more resolution (Mpixels) and was converted to 8 bit and jpegged optimally. Having control does not mean you can make it as good as another much better jpegged file using that control no matter how much you try.... JCO -----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RAW vs. JPG and CF size On 10 Sep 2004 at 22:18, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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. The blanket statement that "RAW/uncompressed storage is the only way to go for serious digital photography" is perfectly valid when referring to the *ist D (which was the basis of the discussion). I always prefer to have access to a file with 16bits depth per colour channel than 8bits (ie larger file size) from any other high performance digital imaging equipment. I'd rather have control of what data is discarded. 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
