On 23 May 2005 at 19:29, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > someone here finally admitted (in the RAW > discussion) that > if I got it right in camera, jpeg would be just as > good for interpolating > to my stock agency's requirements... as long as > the jpeg image was large > enough and hade enough detail.
I don't agree, it depends on whether the scene fits the capabilities of the JPG, there is no getting away from the fact that RAW affords far greater flexibility in latitude and colour adjustment at the bear minimum. Though I'm sure an agency would take pics from a Lomo if they were what they were after. Sorry just woke up trawling though my emails so I'm a bit irritated by all the BS being dished out by the old fart brigade (of which I distance myself today). If St Ansel was writing about exposure today he would be writing an entirely different book. Grrr. 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
