I use the word "fine" in reference to a file setting
(***) and not as a comment about my photography.
Jack, that's the way I took it. ;-)
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MP vs MB
Just to be clear, I use the word "fine" in reference to a file setting
(***) and not as a comment about my photography. =)
Jack
--- Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as the exposure was on the mark and the scenes you shot
weren't
> too difficult with contrast, you should have decent pictures.
Jack, If you're background is slides, you should have little problem
producing good images from fine jpegs.
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MP vs MB
> Presuming the camera was set to full resolution and JPEG *** (Fine)
> quality, that sounds about right.
> As long as the exposure was on the mark and the scenes you shot
weren't
> too difficult with contrast, you should have decent pictures.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>
>> Group,
>> Just shot 9 fine jpg images which yielded files in the 'prox range
of
>> 2.5mb to 3.5mb. Shot no RAW.
>> I know that there was a discussion on this topic several months
ago,
>> but what might I expect in the way of mb with such a file setting?
>> Local photo shop has a few DL's and offered one to play with. I
shot a
>> few frames which they transferred to a CD and gave it to me to
piddle
>> with.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
