Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 8:56 PM -0800 2/2/04, Eric Welch wrote:
>Actually, common formats are going the way of the Dodo. InDesign
>(the future of layout, Quark is doomed in the long run, unless they
>follow suit) programs now support native file formats such as
>Illustrator and Acrobat and Photoshop's newsest format. So why
>convert files to any other format and change them when native is
>best?
>
>Eric Welch
>Carlsbad, CA
>http://www.jphotog.com
>
>"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still
>putting on its shoes."
>-- Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) On Feb 2, 2004, at 6:52 PM, Henning
>Wulff wrote:
>
>>RAW formats generally have greater compression, and allow a greater
>>range of manipulation without degratdation than TIFF. TIFF shooting
>>and compression takes more time, as RAW is closer to what the
>>sensor produces in the first place, and post picture taking
>>processing takes place in your computer, not the camera. Therefore
>>significantly faster, which is the point of RAW rather than TIFF
Only if you generally take your neg to your drugstore and say
'print'. If you've gotten used to doing your own darkroom work, or
getting custom prints, your path leads through Photoshop. Which is
the point of shooting RAW - to have more data to be able to massage
the picture to your liking; otherwise, just shoot JPEG and save
shooting time and flash card space.
TIFF becomes really pointless if you would be satisfied with 8 bit
JPEG which you hand directly to a cheapo printer.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html