Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 601726968; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:55:56 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.221 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003021601572990613 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:57:29 GMT
Received: from computer ([66.222.145.239])
          by priv-edtnes09-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id

          for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:55:51 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 


Subject: Re: New PhotoSIG Pictures
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:56:09 -0700
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 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

Carl Cook  wrote:
>> 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.

I suspect there is a world of difference between the D1X and the CP5000.
Considering the five-fold price difference, there had better be!

;-D

RAW was added as an afterthought in a firmware update, following a write-in
campaign. I don't think the hardware was really designed to support it.
However, using layer masks, I have managed to retain highlight detail while
achieving shadow detail. I will explore it more in days to come.

larry!
ICQ 76620504
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

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