You won't see *any* jpeg artifacts on a RAW file. If you're used to looking for (and finding) jpeg artifacts in over- compressed digital images, you know the sort of thing to look for. The more compression, the more artifacts.
I've never used anything more compressed than a 'best' quality jpeg from my 'D, which are more like 2.5MB than 1.5MB. I have occasionally been able to find a few artifacts (for example, in this shot <http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/Ferrari-1024.jpg> even the full-size jpeg from the camera shows artifacts in some of the reflections. The artifacts around the highlights, though, only show up in the further-compressed 250KB image. But you have to look really, *really* hard to find anything; I'd be quite prepared to have this printed at 16x24. Personally I don't think any small-format capture, be it from an APS-C digital sensor or a frame of 35mm film, works for 20x30. On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:38:06PM -0800, Jack Davis wrote: > Last questions for now. > A close examination of either a 16x24 or 20x30 print (assume LighJet if > you like) will show no resolution disparity between the two? > A 100% (or more) PS image pulled up on my computer will show no > detectable difference in detail? I won't see the tell-tail small file > jpeg artifacts any sooner on the 1.5mp image than I will on the 6.1mp? > > Thanks again, > > Jack > --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com
