> 'If you also consider the fact that the highest quality digital capture > images are the so called RAW files, which are usually compressed by a factor > of 50%, the efficiency of digital capture goes up even more. I have found > that a 7.7 MB Nikon D1x raw file is more than equivalent to a 120MB 35mm > film scan judged as either an inkjet print, or in offset reproduction.'
Since the RAW file is not an RGB file, it's really apples and oranges being compared here. Open any RAW file without the "interpretation" provided by the appropriate software and I doubt you'd find the result to be "high quality." Or even very colorful, since it's just the native grayscale info from the chip (Foveon/Sigma and multishot/scanning backs excepted.) RAW files are useful because they allow one to go back to the original info and reinterpret it without encountering the effects of any previous processing of the image. Once that original info has been turrned into an RGB file, decisions have been made that may ultimately be right, or wrong, and potentially irreversible. --------------- thwarting Google, yaJ essuB Photo Illustrators =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
