I can agree with that, even though I made the statement regarding complication. :-)
With film though, we all (I presume to speak for many) had a 'show me the picture mentality'. We turned in our film for developing and waited to get it back. This is aside from those who developed their own film. With digital, raw, scanners, and photo-processing tools readily at hand on home computers, all of the sudden there are a lot more variables involved, a lot more choices, and a lot more power in the hands of the individual. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:43:57 -0700 > >On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > ... As usual with things of a digital/technical nature, so much a > > splitting of > > hairs. I would never throw away an original slide in favor of it's > > duplicate, which to me at least seems what shooting .jpg is like. > > The same > > can be said of .tifs, as you point out, because of the loss of the > > 4 bits, > > assuming a 12-bit sensor. > > > > A complicated world in which we live. Oh for the days of film, > > projectors. > > viewers, and albums. :-) > >I think people trivialize just how complicated film, projectors, >viewers and albums are because we are so familiar with them, and find >the messy discussions that go on about the differences between RAW >and TIFF, TIFF and JPEG complex because they are dealing with new >concepts. > >Film and its processing mechanisms are a very complex thing which >took 200 years of development to produce to the current quality >standards... > >Godfrey > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
