Tom C wrote: > I hate to be picky too because I readily admit that you could easily show me > the results of a raw, .tif, and .jpg out of camera and 99 times out a 100, I > probably could not tell the difference.
I agree with that. > However, given the vast difference in size between the file formats, knowing > that .jpg is by nature lossy, I still believe something IS being lost, > besides just the bytes saved due to compression. It's just that our eyes > may not readily perceive it. I recognize that it's the same number of pixels > captured in a raw file vs. a .jpg. I will happily accept being wrong on > this issue. My manual tells me that with its highest level of resolution, which is 3264 X 2448, the camera saves the images as RAW, TIFF or one of two levels of jpegs. All the remaining levels of resolution, decreasing to 640 X 480, are saved as either TIFF or JPEG. > With film it was easy. A transparency from the film in camera was a 1st > generation image. A negative was too, but to readily view it, it needed to > be made positive (usually a print) which was a 2nd generation image. For > that matter a print or projection of a slide was second generation as well, > as is of course, any photo we view online or in print. So it can get pretty > silly. For me it was about having the best 1st gen image to work from. Raw > surely must be the best, with .tif coming in second, and .jpg 3rd. Yes, I can understand that, having spent untold hours looking up at a negative in an enlarger... getting a crick in my back! <g> I was obsessed at how beautiful a negative was, such detail that would never be captured on a print... > The problem I have, in principle only, with shooting .jpgs is that I don't > view them as a 1st gen image. One can believe that they are, because > that's what the camera spits out, but are they? > > > Tom C. I guess RAW is the best one has, isn't it. I can't speak to .tiff images, because I haven't figured out what it's good for yet. That's MY problem. One day I'll look into that. So far as jpegs are concerned, I think the original high pixel count images are *very* good quality, at least they are in my camera, and most of us will never need more quality than they give. Usually. Of course, there are always exceptions. But for the bulk of any work I do, a high quality jpeg will do very well. I do minimum manipulation of my images, and I always keep the original jpeg in it's own file, using copies for manipulation purposes. Therein lies another discussion, for another time... keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
