RAW doesn't give you more resolution, but upsizing a RAW during conversion is apparently superior to upsizing a jpeg or tiff in PhotoShop. Works for me. Paul
> Jack, > My understanding is that RAW gives you more shades of colors in eachpixel and > more opportunity to adjust colors in post production, butjpeg or RAW, you > still > have 6 million pixels to work with...no more,no less. So I look on RAW as > just > a way to get better post processedimages, not anything to improve resolution. > On resolution, Rob S. has done some great pano's and the stichingprogram he > is > using is rather slick. I'm getting this picture (4portrait oriented shots > stiched)members.aol.com/rfsindg/curve.jpgprinted from a 3,000 by 5,000 jpeg > shot > with my *ist DS.We'll see how it looks at 20 by 36 inches. > Regards, Bob S. > On 11/28/05, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Bob,> Since I recognize > my > "unhealthy" need for the highest possible> resolution, (always ready to > furnish > a 16x24 by next week) I would> probably shoot RAW in case I caught a real > "keeper".> Because of my satisfaction with my inventory of Pentax glass, I'm> > prepared to W A I T (Nikon, however, is faintly calling) for more> Pentax > pixels > and to consider reviews and practical experience> reactions prior to a > decision.> The practical advice to not look at it as an "either-or" decision > will> be followed.> All sage advice y'all have generously offered is greatly > appreciated.>> Jack>>> --- Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > > Jack,Just shooting for my own enjoyment, but Cotty made a good> > suggestion > to > me.Shoot high quality jpegs and don't look back.The> > jpegs are 1.5 meg. > Burning 1,000 of them takes 2 or 3 cd's.I don't> > hassle with a digital work > flow. Cropping is about all I try to> > do.What I've wanted to! > re-shoot so far has been technique errors on> > my part.Stick your toe in > the > water with a *istDS and see how it> > works.Regards, Bob S.> > On 11/28/05, > Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I'm all mulled> > out over film v > digital. I'm a semi-pro (I guess) as> print sales> > (web and brick 'n > mortar) > is not my only sours of income,> but is my> > only overt effort at income.> I > can afford a casual attitude as to> > "work-flow", (habitually re-shoot,> > bracket, re-compose) covet my> > negs/slides and have no problem with the> > processing/scanning/CD> > ritual or their costs.> Recently sold my MF gear > and > am at an photo> > investment crossroads.> I visualize photo trips, wherein my > motel> > relaxing, moose milk drinking> evenings become a sleep-depriving> > > delima of "delete?, save?, re-work?,> re-shoot?...."> Minor point?> > Maybe.> > I > do like the cleaner overall look of many digitals, but am I> > in> love..I'm > really not sure.> I realize no one can decide for me,> > but! > would appreciate your take.>> Thanks, in advance, for> > commenting.> > > Jack>>>>>> __________________________________________>> > Yahoo! DSL > Something to write home about.> Just $16.99!> > /mo. or less.> > dsl.yahoo.com>>> > >> >>>>>>> __________________________________> Yahoo! Music Unlimited> Access > over 1 million songs. Try it free.> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/>> >
