The short answer is yes. What you'll usually see is that some of the subtle variations in shade will be lost. It's even possible that this will cause loss of a detail edge between two areas that are almost, but not quite, the same colour, bujt this is extremely rare.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 03:37:31PM -0800, Jack Davis wrote: > No one can reduce a subject to its basics any faster than I. > Are you contending that a 1.5mp jpeg will render the same detail as a > 6mp RAW? > Does a fine jpeg capture the same image detail as a RAW or TIFF? > I know I'll still be confused after your learned answer, but please > bear with me. > > Thanks, > > Jack > > --- Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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/>> > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
