"James B. Davis" <jbdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:06:41 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > wrote/replied to: > >>> Try adjusting the 'levels' of a JPG after you get it back home in PS. >>> Check histogram... >> >>Sure, I do that all the time. Yes, I can see it in the histogram -- >>but the question is, can you see it in the *print*? > > I guess the real question here is 'does it matter to you'? It matters > to me. I always want to maximize my image quality. A difference that can't be measured isn't a difference. If this improvement in quality can't be detected in a double-blind study by viewers, then it's not real. That said, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here. I think we'd all say we want the best images (though some of us clearly work harder / spend more time / spend more money to get there). But perhaps the ability to shoot 109 images instead of 19 on a card makes more difference than the extra quality from RAW vs. fine jpeg. And the drawbacks of jpeg matter less the more perfectly the scene is lit and exposed in the first place. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
