You didn't question any claim, you posted a snotty little obtuse comment
that read so: "Really? What do you think does the conversion to JPEG,
then?" Therein lay the principal instance of nitpicking in this thread.
You're just miffed because you're used to getting away without being called
on it.
Seeing that you had been caught playing the pedant, you then switched your
position, acknowledging that there could be a difference, but that you
doubted that the second method was *better*.
You then MANUFACTURED a quote to make your own, newly adopted, position seem
more reasonable, and go on to take me to task for noticing. HAR!
Regardless of what you may want to believe, people on this list have noticed
that there is a difference in result between the two types of conversion.
OK, you have now abandoned your first position ("why would you assume that
the in-camera conversion does not have the same problems" - implying that
there isn't a difference, although it had already been established that the
difference in result was not ASSUMED but OBSERVED) in favor of your second
(there may be a difference but one is not necessarily better). The change,
though unnoticed, is most welcome.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10-Nov-03 20:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
>
> I may not have been your claim, but it most certainly is your fabrication.
>
> Mr. Owens wrote is as follows: "I find ***L jpeg to be more than enough
for
> my use, and I don't use the Pentax software. I import directly into
> Photoshop via PIM."
>
> I did not understand him to mean, nor is it reasonable to imply that he
> meant, that importing ***L jpg into PS is a panacea, only that it offers
> better results than using the bundled Pentax RAW-->jpg conversion
software.
And it's *precisely* that claim that I am questioning.
It may be true. Or it may not be. But it seems perfectly
reasonable to question this assumption, given the fact that
we know there some issues with the RAW-to-JPEG conversion
in Photo Laboratory. We know that the in-camera conversion
seems to use a *different* algorithm. But is it better?
Go ahead and nit-pick this to death again, if that's all
you can offer to the discussion. It would be nice if you
could offer something useful instead, but I'm not hopeful.
