[LRflex] Re: RAW vs JPEG (was More from Alaska) - slightly OT
- From: bob palmieri <rpalmier@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:29:40 -0500
On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Alex Hurst wrote:
>
> For those seeking ultimate quality, the RAW route certainly makes a
> lot of sense at the cost of a considerable amount of extra work.
> OTOH, if your camera can produce a perfectly good 10Mb JPEG, it's
> unlikely that you'll see much difference in quality up to the size of
> an A4 print, which is my printer maximum anyway. And for publishing
> on the Net at 90 dpi, I doubt you could tell the difference between a
> large JPEG and RAW.
>
Alex -
One of the main things I do in the RAW conversion stage has absolutely
nothing to do with effects which only show up at larger sizes, and
that's white balance adjustment.
You wouldn't believe the difference between my camera's JPEGS and my
RAW conversions in this regard.
Bob Palmieri
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
