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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Flycaster, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. Flycaster

    Flycaster Guest

    "Mark M" <> 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.
    Flycaster, Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Flycaster

    Mark M Guest

    "Flycaster" <> wrote in message
    news:3f0e37f9$...
    >
    > "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    > news:J44Pa.444$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.
    Mark M, Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Flycaster

    Lionel Guest

    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" <> said:

    >"Flycaster" <> 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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Jul 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Flycaster

    Jim Davis Guest

    On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:10:19 -0700, "Flycaster" <>
    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/
    Jim Davis, Jul 12, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Flycaster
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    722
    Jim Davis
    Jul 12, 2003
  2. Wayne

    Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?

    Wayne, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    122
    Views:
    3,306
    Philip Homburg
    Aug 11, 2003
  3. Stu

    Enlargements from Digital?

    Stu, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    701
    Scott Elliot
    Sep 29, 2003
  4. mark_digital©

    Enlargements aren't as good as before

    mark_digital©, Oct 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    343
    Flycaster
    Oct 26, 2003
  5. Dave K.
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    17,312
    Mark Herring
    Dec 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page