It was 5/8/03 11:42 am, when Paul Tansley wrote: > I seem to remember you demonstrating that the steps "could" be seen (you > gave a method of demonstrating this very fact). Its just that normally you > won't be able to see them. Are you saying that just because you can't see > something, its not there?
Paul I also said that I had to magnify the image 400% before I could see some slight difference. By your definition, you don't need to shoot anything. Just give a blank print to someone, if they say, hey there's nothing there, you can say, just because it's not there doesn't mean it's not there! For Christ's sake, do a simple test. Rotate a JPEG in Photoshop, rotate one in GC, print them to A4 and look at them from arms length. If you can see a degradation in quality, it's there, if you can't, it not there. End of story. If you want to win and argument, go ahead...I'm not interested in winning, as someone is fond of saying. <g> > PS - I you stick a blind man in front of your monitor, and he messes up you > image (degrades it) he won't see a visible difference. Does that mean its > not there? I'll assume for the sake of list harmony that the above is NOT meant as an insult. Now, where did I put that cane?... Respectfully, Shangara. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
