William Robb wrote: >From: "Juan Buhler" > >>> For those of us who want actual control over their workflow, and >>> repeatable results from multiple printing options, Linux is Not There >>> Yet. >> >> I do agree with that. Funny that someone who refuses to use a lossy >> compression format would process his images in an 8-bit program. That >> point made me smile. > >We've tested this at the studio. With the equipment we are using (Noritsu >digital wet lab), there is little if any visible difference between a print >made from an 8 bit jpeg and a 16 bit RAW file, presuming that the image >falls within the range of the jpeg.
That's not surprising in a studio situation -- assuming the lighting is set up properly, and I have no doubt that it is, in your case. The advantages of Raw come into play in situations with extremes of exposure latitude, when the difference between the shadows and highlights is greater than an 8-bit color channel can cover. And when 1 or two channels are clipped, as can happen in extreme outdoor situations, Raw can be a lifesaver. Of course, to paranoid-neurotic "compression is for losers" types, whether you can *see* any difference is irrelevant. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
