Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I wouldn't be so quick to agree with the previous assertions about end quality. For one, if you are only going to the web with the images, how would the extended quality become a matter of concern? Secondly, industry claims, and its self-monitoring of the archival properties of its products, are on par with the self monitoring of the chicken slaughter houses. There is yet to be a definitive industry wide set of normative standards. The ISO has yet to catch up to the hyper growth in this sector. The Los Angeles Public Library did a neighborhood documentary project on Hollywood. It lasted two years. This was the first time that it agreed to the use of digital media. My own previous project for them, On San Pedro CA, was done on BW film, 120 and 4x5. To make along story short, after all that work (with access to the major studios) the images were printed on the best material possible at the time. This was only a few years ago. The images, exhibited inside, behind glass, were turning purple after three months on display. S.d. On May 9, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Craig Semetko wrote: > > Thanks again to Geoff and Tina and everyone else who explained the > RAW advantages in a constructive way. You cleared the issue up for > me. For the most part, I'm not a "hard news" shooter working on > deadlines, so as I use the M8 more and more, I will definitely be > shooting in DNG. The "throwing away your negative and working from > a drugstore print" is a really effective metaphor, Tina! Thanks! > > Cheers, > > Craig > > NO ARCHIVE > > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:27:59 +1000 >> From: Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] B&W on M8.2... >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Message-ID: >> <36172e5a0905081627r339fd6b2s32b5397366aca5d at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Well that's part of the story but is not necessarily significant. >> The BIG >> difference is how much information the camera throws away at the >> outset. You >> can't get that back. If you want to extract the most information >> from the >> M8, DNG is the only choice. That may not be important for some >> purposes >> certainly. >> But remember that Craig's original question was asking about >> advantages and >> disadvantages of shooting DNG vs. jpg. >> Craig has explained that his pro friends use jpg and it suits >> their purposes >> fine. No reason to doubt that. It doesn't invalidate the technical >> differences though.It just says that those aren't a priority for >> the way >> they work. >> Having said that I don't think that the M8 implements jpg >> especially well >> compared to the mainstream cameras (which those pros are >> undoubtedly using). > > > >> Having said that I don't think that the M8 implements jpg >> especially well >> compared to the mainstream cameras (which those pros are >> undoubtedly using). > > I still cannot understand shooting jpegs under any > circumstances. DNG doesn't take that much longer - infinitesimal > parts of a second. Shooting jpeg you are throwing away your negative > and working from a drugstore print. Can't understand that at all!! > > Tina > > Tina Manley > www.tinamanley.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information