Let's make sure we're differentiating between raw capture and JPEG
printing. I won't argue against raw capture as the best way to get all
the detail available nor that editing is best done with all the dynamic
range possible. That gives us the opportunity of compressing the range
and moving it up or down into what can be shown on paper.
However, when it comes to printing the final result, the dynamic range
of a print is typically in the range of 5-6 stops. The printing process
is simply not capable of reproducing the tonal range that exists even in
the JPEG.
Chuck Norcutt
Tom Scales wrote:
> I aboslutely can. Absolutely.
>
> Can I at 4x6 or perhaps even 8x10? No, not likely.
>
> Can I at 24x36? Of course.
>
> Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:49 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
>
>
>
>>Can you tell the difference between a 48 bit TIFF and a high quality
>>JPEG... after it's printed? My guess is no. I don't think any
>>printer/ink combo can reproduce the detail that's in the JPEG let alone
>>the TIFF. It makes sense to maintain all possible detail on an image
>>that may undergo further editing but I don't think the final sharpened,
>>printable image need be other than a JPEG.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|