Howard <howard.leigh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Three points... > 1 Can anyone actually see the difference in the final image > between TIFF and JPG at maximum quality (and not repeatedly saved and > recompressed)?? I haven't in tests I've done so far, but that's just on-screen. > 2 Can you actually see the difference between an 16 bit TIFF and > an 8 bit TIFF?? I doubt it. However, the camera-original file is the *beginning* of a process. I find it fairly likely that people will sometimes be able to see the difference in the *end product* based on which of those was put in at the beginning. This is most likely, of course, in a photo that requires rather drastic tone adjustments -- where you're stretching some part of the brightness range a lot. Starting with 8-bit means it's more likely you'll see posterization in stretched areas (or a weird sort of "harshness" that may be the prelude to actual posterization). > 3 And in any case, if the same image were shot simultaneously on > Canon 20D, Nikon D100, Pentax *st, Sigma 10D, Kodak etc., in RAW > format and converted to TIFF without any manipulation, I'll bet that > these would almost definitely show distinct differences when > printed.... > > Just as using different films gave differing results under as > identical a set of conditions as possible! > > So what DO we all mean by the "best quality"?? Most often I mean "the highest quality setting the particular camera supports"; in phrases like "You don't need to shoot at best quality for ebay photos". -- 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/>
