Received: from n1d.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 599238515; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:14:28 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.60 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003021601160165683 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:16:01 GMT
Received: (qmail 18847 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2003 06:14:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BananaNose) (64.42.61.152)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 16 Feb 2003 06:14:22 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "Carl Cook" 
To: 
References: 

Subject: Re: New PhotoSIG Pictures
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:14:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

>
> When I first tested pictures shot in RAW format, I saw no advantage
whatever
> over the quality I was getting with best quality JPEGs. However, I have
> found one use for them.
>
With the D1x, there is a world of difference between JPEG FINE and RAW. The
former is great for publications and for enlargements up to about 8x10 or
so, but beyond that, the images kind of fall apart, while in RAW, I have
been able to make enlargements up tp 13x19, as big as my printers goes, and
the prints are very very nice -- in fact, I could easily say pretty close to
perfect.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5