Toralf Lund wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > > >>As everyone is posting flower pictures, here's mine. >> >>Converted from RAW in PLab, resized in PS6. >> >>http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/52/extra/new/display/6022920 >> >>Not really a good example - I'm still looking for something that shows >>clearly what I'm talking about. >> >> > > I think what you are trying to say, is that sometimes you can notice > just by looking at the picture the fact that a digital image actually > has a finite number of discrete colours, and also a (lower) finite > number of shades of one colour - where I suppose a traditional print had > more of a continuous range. (And generally you want the range to be > perceived as continuous, even with digital.) > > Maybe you are right. Perhaps 24 bits (which is what you usually see on > screen) isn't quite enough under some circumstances, or perhaps the > problem is that the number of "effective" bits after processing is > actually lower (and so low that you notice...) > > I don't think this is unique to a fully digital setup, though - I > believe I've seen the same thing with "modern" prints from film, which > are also digitally processed, of course.
Absolutely correct. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
