Re: Re: big enlargements from 10D... what settings on camera??
 

"Mark M" <mjmorgan2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:J44Pa.444$Bp2.83@fed1read07...
> While a agree that jpeg is not only excellent, but preferable under
certain
> circumstances...you shouldn't lump the "compression" of RAW in with that
of
> a jpeg. There is a huge difference.
> Jpeg=lossy compression, where RAW keeps all image data entirely intact.

Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that RAW is still compressed and
has to be converted back to true pixel numerical values - and I did a poor
job of saying that.

I still stand by the comparison though. Large Fine JPG vs RAW, irrespective
of print size, is NOT noticeably inferior, provided the camera settings are
correct. I've printed enough images to be convinced of that - though I
still shoot RAW if practical simply because the Adobe RAW plug-in can be a
big manipulation time saver. Without a PS plug-in, however, RAW is a PITA;
Canon should not be *allowed* to write software, IMO.

Re: Re: big enlargements from 10D... what settings on camera??
 

"Flycaster" <nospam@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:3f0e37f9$1@nntp.bendcable.com...
>
> "Mark M" <mjmorgan2@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:J44Pa.444$Bp2.83@fed1read07...
> > While a agree that jpeg is not only excellent, but preferable under
> certain
> > circumstances...you shouldn't lump the "compression" of RAW in with that
> of
> > a jpeg. There is a huge difference.
> > Jpeg=lossy compression, where RAW keeps all image data entirely intact.
>
> Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that RAW is still compressed
and
> has to be converted back to true pixel numerical values - and I did a poor
> job of saying that.
>
> I still stand by the comparison though. Large Fine JPG vs RAW,
irrespective
> of print size, is NOT noticeably inferior, provided the camera settings
are
> correct. I've printed enough images to be convinced of that - though I
> still shoot RAW if practical simply because the Adobe RAW plug-in can be a
> big manipulation time saver. Without a PS plug-in, however, RAW is a
PITA;
> Canon should not be *allowed* to write software, IMO.

With that big "if" of correct settings, I could mostly agree with you here.
And...yes. Canon definitely needs to contract out for their software. Even
after many updates and changes, their programs for images and especially RAW
file handling continue to be arguably the poorest implementation out there.
I'm a Canon fan, but let's face it...these programs just plain stink.

Re: big enlargements from 10D... what settings on camera??
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:57:38 -0700, in <R5uPa.1697$Bp2.332@fed1read07>,
"Mark M" <mjmorgan2@cox.net> said:

>"Flycaster" <nospam@noyb.com> wrote in message
>> Canon should not be *allowed* to write software, IMO.
>
>With that big "if" of correct settings, I could mostly agree with you here.
>And...yes. Canon definitely needs to contract out for their software. Even
>after many updates and changes, their programs for images and especially RAW
>file handling continue to be arguably the poorest implementation out there.
>I'm a Canon fan, but let's face it...these programs just plain stink.

You won't get any argument from me about that. I worked for them for
years, & the nicest thing I've ever been able to say about their
software is that you get it for free. *Eleven* seconds per image for RAW
conversion, for fsck's sake, & they never have gotten the hang of
writing reliable drivers or installation programs.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Re: Re: big enlargements from 10D... what settings on camera??
 

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:10:19 -0700, "Flycaster" <nospam@noyb.com>
wrote/replied to:

>I still stand by the comparison though. Large Fine JPG vs RAW, irrespective
>of print size, is NOT noticeably inferior, provided the camera settings are
>correct. I've printed enough images to be convinced of that - though I
>still shoot RAW if practical simply because the Adobe RAW plug-in can be a
>big manipulation time saver

And I still stand my the fact that a 16 bit TIF with no compression
artifacts makes a much better print. Not to mention any manipulation
that a JPG needs seriously degrades it.

If you don't see a difference, then please ignore this and continue to
shoot inferior images.



Jim Davis
Nature Photography
http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/