Film versus digital; Pure psychology?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best
digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from
a comparision problem. Before, when they took pictures, many
of them never ventured from the old 4" x 6" print. Now, they
routinely print 8.5" x 11" because that is what the most common
print paper size is. So in reality, they are comparing their
large print quality with the quality of 4" x 6" film prints.
Of course the film will look better! However, if they decide to
match them print per print, even a 3.3 megapixel camera will produce
photos as good as 35mm film, provided you don't exceed that 4x6
print size.
Had they printed all their 35mm prints on large paper, they might
have been singing a different tune about film versus digital.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <te5c319vda64ci5nhjju0rj1j59a1tvnk5@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best
> digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from
> a comparision problem. Before, when they took pictures, many
> of them never ventured from the old 4" x 6" print. Now, they
> routinely print 8.5" x 11" because that is what the most common
> print paper size is. So in reality, they are comparing their
> large print quality with the quality of 4" x 6" film prints.
> Of course the film will look better! However, if they decide to
> match them print per print, even a 3.3 megapixel camera will produce
> photos as good as 35mm film, provided you don't exceed that 4x6
> print size.
> Had they printed all their 35mm prints on large paper, they might
> have been singing a different tune about film versus digital.
> -Rich

I think some of us that contend that are speaking regarding imagery
used for offset printing,...not digital snapshots.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best
> digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from
> a comparision problem. Before, when they took pictures, many
> of them never ventured from the old 4" x 6" print. Now, they
> routinely print 8.5" x 11" because that is what the most common
> print paper size is. So in reality, they are comparing their
> large print quality with the quality of 4" x 6" film prints.
> Of course the film will look better! However, if they decide to
> match them print per print, even a 3.3 megapixel camera will produce
> photos as good as 35mm film, provided you don't exceed that 4x6
> print size.
> Had they printed all their 35mm prints on large paper, they might
> have been singing a different tune about film versus digital.

No declarations about where the boundary is, but I've printed many film
images at 8x12 that are as clean, and more detailed than a 6 MPix camera
can produce. I'll grant that at most sizes, a good digital image
prints cleaner than film at large sizes (thanks Dougie) but the detail
from film is there to a larger size than the current crop of 6 and 8
Mpix camera..., just noisier than the digital.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater
exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor.
High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and more
picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor.
Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing process
provides much greater control over color, contrast and saturation than any
wet printing process. Unless you have color darkroom experience you have no
idea what is involved.
It is much easier and faster to capture the image and process it in the
digital realm. Digital images are good enough for most uses and one day will
equal or surpass film originals.
That day has not come.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:55:20 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater
>exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor.
>High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and more
>picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor.
>Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing process
>provides much greater control over color, contrast and saturation than any
>wet printing process. Unless you have color darkroom experience you have no
>idea what is involved.
>It is much easier and faster to capture the image and process it in the
>digital realm. Digital images are good enough for most uses and one day will
>equal or surpass film originals.
>That day has not come.
>

I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan.
The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital
but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium
format.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <YUtZd.21859$OU1.9652@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater
> exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor.
> High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and more
> picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor.

I agree.

> Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing process
> provides much greater control over color, contrast and saturation than any
> wet printing process. Unless you have color darkroom experience you have no
> idea what is involved.

For the average user no, but I would say that if one has access to a
very good higher end color inkjet the gamut and controls could be better
"depending on the operator", but maybe not the resolution by comparison
to a wet print. If one is printing lambdas or lightjet prints then the
out put resolution can be on par or better if the original is flawed in
any way, and one can get truely excellent results if ones lab is
attuned to giving you good results.

> It is much easier and faster to capture the image and process it in the
> digital realm. Digital images are good enough for most uses and one day will
> equal or surpass film originals.
> That day has not come.

No it hasn't, I question when that day might be because I don't see
standards as being raised but somewhat if only for the short term
somewhat lowered in favor of that quick "required" turnaround.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news16q65$2u9$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> RichA wrote:
>
> > I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan.
> > The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital
> > but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium
> > format.
> > -Rich
>
> One camera I saw for the U-2 was huge. So big in fact that the film was
> spit down the middle and ran in opposing directions in order to keep the
> weight and balance of the aircraft neutral. (How they matched it all up
> afterwards is another matter).
>
The U2 is obsolete for the most part, used 10" roll film. The USAF/CIA
satellites like KH-11 are digital, and can transmit in real-time. The U2 has
to overfly and return to base, the film has to be processed etc.. I do
believe the U2 now carries real-time imaging equipment, otherwise it would
be useless compared to the Predator and Global Hawk.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <te5c319vda64ci5nhjju0rj1j59a1tvnk5@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best
>digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from
>a comparision problem. Before, when they took pictures, many
>of them never ventured from the old 4" x 6" print. Now, they
>routinely print 8.5" x 11" because that is what the most common
>print paper size is.

Strawman hypothesis.

As I already noted in a post to the E-300 vignetting thread,
the best 35mm films have resolution far exceeding any digital.
Try looking at a *large* print (20x16, or even 20x30).

I've seen a 20x30 print from a 6MP digital camera. It's pretty
darn impressive (especially in the lack of noise in the sky).
But it's not a patch on what you can get from film.

[As I also noted, you'll never see the difference unless you
are using top-quality glass, optimal shooting conditions, and
top-of-the-line scanning and/or printing. Furthermore, if you
really want resolution, stop messing around with small formats]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

> really want resolution, stop messing around with small formats]


Okay you win. Now, back to regular, charter sanctioned programming...

"Debating the pros and cons of digital photography vs. film photography
is off-topic." http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsyscharter.htm

( Yeah, I've sinned too. ).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <fdSdnSAtt4tAvarfRVn-sA@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>
> When I was a Photo Interpretation Specialist in the USAF the principal
> film was nine inches wide. Depending on camera, the frames were 9x9 or
> 9x18, with about a quarter-inch unexposed border (half-inch between
> frames). I had no experience in U-2 photography as a PI. We used 35mm
> shots of radarscopes to score practice bombing runs made by RB-47
> pretending to drop unclear weapons on divers targets including Dallas
> and Miami.
>
> Later I was a Photogrammetrist, making charts from all sources,
> including the big photos and U-2 stuff (shh: at that time no one
> admitted the U-2s existed; I caught a hop to Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico, and
> on the bus from the plane to base ops I saw one in a hangar. It looked
> so pretty compared to the air tankers and B-36s that surrounded it that
> I said something. The bus driver looked at me with a dead-eye and shook
> his head.).
>
> I don't remember that the U-2 photos were of different format, but they
> might have been. I do remember the photography we saw was near-usless
> for cartographic purposes. It was all oblique, 200-inch f/l if I recall
> correctly, and very difficult to relate to other sources. There was
> undoubtedly better U-2 photography available, but our squadron was about
> a third-level resource for the Map-maker-in-charge, and the Guys at
> Offutt and the Center of the Universe in St Louis got first shot at the
> good stuff.
>
> My favorite chart was of Mt Ararat and environs. I found a shape of the
> right size, cubit-ly soeaking, near the summit, and marked it with a
> wrecked-ship symbol. I've never seen the published chart, but I bet the
> Ark was edited off. Seems to me an American astronaut was involved in an
> expedition to find it, some time in the 60s.
>
> I'll have to check for closer, similar U-2 exhibits. March Field
> (Riverside, California, 90 miles up the road) has an air museum. Maybe
> tomorrow.

Very interesting :-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3euc31pojfnfcje6k9l9s1jt3pcsga7tc0@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan.
> The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital
> but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium
> format.
> -Rich

If I remember correctly, the negatives for those cameras were freaking
huge. At least a foot or so across.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d176oj$1p8$1@reader1.panix.com>, johnf@panix.com says...
> As I already noted in a post to the E-300 vignetting thread,
> the best 35mm films have resolution far exceeding any digital.
> Try looking at a *large* print (20x16, or even 20x30).
>
> I've seen a 20x30 print from a 6MP digital camera. It's pretty
> darn impressive (especially in the lack of noise in the sky).
> But it's not a patch on what you can get from film.

Have you seen a 20x30 print from 35mm film?

Not pretty.

Some films can capture extra detail beyond what a digital sensor can
resolve - but the contrast is so low and the grain so great that you're
not going to get much real detail past a certain point.

From what I've seen, read, and experienced first hand, a 8 megapixel
DSLR is just about equal to 35mm color film in terms of usable
resolution. At speeds above ISO 200 or so, digital certainly has the
advantage due to the lack of grain.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:21:20 -0500, "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

>
>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news16q65$2u9$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> RichA wrote:
>>
>> > I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan.
>> > The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital
>> > but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium
>> > format.
>> > -Rich
>>
>> One camera I saw for the U-2 was huge. So big in fact that the film was
>> spit down the middle and ran in opposing directions in order to keep the
>> weight and balance of the aircraft neutral. (How they matched it all up
>> afterwards is another matter).
>>
>The U2 is obsolete for the most part, used 10" roll film. The USAF/CIA
>satellites like KH-11 are digital, and can transmit in real-time. The U2 has
>to overfly and return to base, the film has to be processed etc.. I do
>believe the U2 now carries real-time imaging equipment, otherwise it would
>be useless compared to the Predator and Global Hawk.
>
>

According to Aviation Week (I believe) it still uses film.
With large installations to be photographed (as opposed to
say, truck-mounted missles) you don't have to worry about
real-time as much.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:16:41 GMT, Gregory Blank
<bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

>I guess your rightly considering yourself in the 95% as you say so
>yourself.

Stop guessing and look at the facts.

>But as far a deluding oneself try matching my
>4x5 or my 8x10 cameras with your 8 megapixel digital camera.

Whoooosh! the goal posts move again.

When did SLR suddenly become MF or LF?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <423762A5.2983DA1E@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Gregory Blank wrote:
> >
> > That's because 95% of the "digital only debaters" in on the usenet don't
> > have enough or good enough practical film experience "imop".
> >
>
> That's a completely wrong generalization. For years, the r.p.e.35mm
> group, originally a film group with 35mm cameras, has been getting
> increasingly populated by ex-film or co-film people who have changed to
> digital, or who use digital alongside film. That's what sparked the
> development of r.p.e.digital, and lately the variants of .dslr and .zlr.
>
> For what my humble opinion is worth, as a long-time photographer with
> professional experience, dslr cameras like Canon and Nikon (and others)
> far surpass 35mm film in sheer print quality overall, as well as
> exposure versatility, and have the ability to change effective ISO and
> white balance literally shot by shot, something that is impossible with
> film. And, shooting at ISO 800 or 1600 with film yields very poor
> results compared with the same in digital. Other benefits are no film
> costs, no need to 'finish' (read waste) a film to get a few shots
> processed, no negative scanner needed with its inevitable loss of
> quality, etc.
>
> Digital has more dynamic range, better color and noise, and yields
> better prints than 35mm film, period. Digital's Achilles heel is
> overexposure and blown highlights. You can blow highlights with film
> too, but with digital it's more sudden, so your exposure has to be
> better controlled than with film.

Uh thats a big one & not good when shooting weddings and probably not
other action types of work, these cameras are not intuitive enough for
my taste at the price point I want to afford. I guess I could shoot raw
but for hundreds of shots its not an option.

> But, most cameras have an exposure
> histogram display, and you can tell instantly where your exposure is,
> and correct if necessary. Can't do that with film.

With film there's leeway so your not missing shots that your busy
looking at the camera back for "chimping".


> There will always be somebody who will take a reactionary stance to
> things new, for whatever reason. Ignore them, do your own homework, and
> progress.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I in as much said what I did to see
what kind of response I would get. Obviously some people like yourself
are better enable to make a point. Quite frankly I personally rarely
shoot 35 mm and find myself shooting the digital in place of that,
problems I see compared to a same film image aside .

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:00:50 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:55:20 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater
>>exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor.
>>High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and more
>>picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor.
>>Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing process
>>provides much greater control over color, contrast and saturation than any
>>wet printing process. Unless you have color darkroom experience you have no
>>idea what is involved.
>>It is much easier and faster to capture the image and process it in the
>>digital realm. Digital images are good enough for most uses and one day will
>>equal or surpass film originals.
>>That day has not come.
>>
>
>I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan.
>The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital
>but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium
>format.

Sorry, the UR-2 can carry wet film but that's not the media of choice.
It's digital from it's sensors due to the lag time for the data. It's
the nine inch film.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/u2ds/part04.htm


******************************************************************

"It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name
of the public interest, to be placed under contribution,
drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from,
squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance,
the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined,
vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed,
disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned,
shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to
crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured.
That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

"General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century"
Pierre Proudhon

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <bugstopped_-FAB38F.17225115032005@news.verizon.net>,
bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com says...
> > No, it's because SOME OF US actually read test results showing digital
> > can outperform film in terms of dynamic range and color accuracy. We're
> > not deluding ourselves about the performance of digital - we're being
> > realistic about the limits of film.
> >
> > Even better, some of us actually use digital cameras and see the results
> > firsthand.
>
> You can read? , its a wonder with all that drooling ;-)
>
> Yes; quite frankly I do use digital slr cameras & yes I look at my
> practical results not test data. So I fear you are once again way off
> base by my standards.

So you have not experienced better color accuracy and more dynamic
range? You must be doing something wrong.

> I guess your rightly considering yourself in the 95% as you say so
> yourself (see above).
>
> But as far a deluding oneself try matching my
> 4x5 or my 8x10 cameras with your 8 megapixel digital camera.

The discussion is color and exposure - not large format versus small
format.

> Nice try - I think not now go home and be a nice boy.

If you could only discuss the topic at hand...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
> In article <YUtZd.21859$OU1.9652@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater
>> exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor.
>> High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and
>> more picture information than images from any currently available
>> digital sensor.

> I agree.

Huh? Digital camera sensors have a very large gamut, greater than
that of even ProPhoto RGB. The problem happens when you try to make a
print.

>> Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing
>> process provides much greater control over color, contrast and
>> saturation than any wet printing process. Unless you have color
>> darkroom experience you have no idea what is involved.

> For the average user no, but I would say that if one has access to a
> very good higher end color inkjet the gamut and controls could be
> better "depending on the operator", but maybe not the resolution by
> comparison to a wet print.

Digital inkjet prints comfortably exceed the resolution of the eye,
so it's fairly irrelevant to argue about whether the resolution is
better or worse than that of wet prints.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
><snipped>
> However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures,
> and if I switch to RAW+BASIC, it drops to a mere 87 exposures.
>
Hell, that's over 10 MBytes per shot for a raw image. The Canon 10/300D
cameras have a raw image size of about 7 MBytes, and I get an estimated
145 shots on a 1GB card, including the .jpg. A raw shot expands to a bit
over 18 MBytes as a .tif, which is about what the D70 will do, I guess.

My biggest problem with raw is the time it takes to convert to .tif, if
you take the time to optimize the image during conversion.
>

olin

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d1av9g$60h$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>, dnichols@d-and-d.com
says...
> Actually -- I see this complaint as having some validity. As an
> example, with medium/fine settings, my D70 offers 522 shots on a 1 GB
> flash card -- and actually delivers around 700+.
>
> However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures,
> and if I switch to RAW+BASIC, it drops to a mere 87 exposures.
>
> Even if I go to large/fine (JPEG), I have 293 images claimed
> capacity.
>
> So -- if hundreds of shots are indeed intended, RAW+BASIC
> (RAW+minimal size JPEG) is too limiting, unless perhaps there are a
> handful of CF cards on hand (rather expensive, with 1GB cards, and even
> more so with 4GB cards).

Memory prices are at an all-time low. You can easily afford 2-4 GB of
storage these days. Buy a bunch of 512MD cards for about $35 a piece
from NewEgg.com and you'll be set.

That should cover all but the most prolific photographers. God knows I
can't burn through more than about 200 photos in a day. If you can -
well, you can also carry along a used laptop and use it as a photo dump
if you like.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
....

> However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures,
> and if I switch to RAW+BASIC, it drops to a mere 87 exposures.
>
> Even if I go to large/fine (JPEG), I have 293 images claimed
> capacity.
>
> So -- if hundreds of shots are indeed intended, RAW+BASIC
> (RAW+minimal size JPEG) is too limiting, unless perhaps there are a
> handful of CF cards on hand (rather expensive, with 1GB cards, and
> even more so with 4GB cards).

The RAW counter underestimates by 100%. You'll have, on the average, twice
as many RAW exposures left. I get around 190 on a 1G card.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> writes:

> Memory prices are at an all-time low. You can easily afford 2-4 GB of
> storage these days. Buy a bunch of 512MD cards for about $35 a piece
> from NewEgg.com and you'll be set.
>
> That should cover all but the most prolific photographers. God knows I
> can't burn through more than about 200 photos in a day. If you can -
> well, you can also carry along a used laptop and use it as a photo dump
> if you like.

I've gone over 500 at a wedding reception. I think I've gone over 200
touristing, even. And that was on film, where I tended to shoot a bit
more conservatively (it costing actually money and all).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <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/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1ca4f0bac0fdedcb98a844@news.verizon.net>,
Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>In article <bugstopped_-584C3E.15530317032005@news.verizon.net>,
>bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com says...
>> On average I have been shooting 400-600 images at weddings, for the

[ ... ]

>> The small jpeg that comes with the Raw setting is too small for his
>> purpose, so in this instance I am stuck shooting "L" Fine setting jpegs.
>
>Most cameras allow you to shoot RAW+Whatever size JPEG you like. So, if
>you need the "Large" JPEG, no problemo.

"Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that
is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which
translates to RAW + maximum JPEG compression -- and the image size
option is greyed out so you can't select large or medium to go with that
ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't
display the RAW images on the LCD monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

> "Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that
> is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which
> translates to RAW + maximum JPEG compression -- and the image size
> option is greyed out so you can't select large or medium to go with
> that ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't
> display the RAW images on the LCD monitor.

Of course it can. All of my RAW only shots show up just fine on my D-70's
monitor.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

>
> "Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that
> is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which
> translates to RAW + maximum JPEG compression -- and the image size
> option is greyed out so you can't select large or medium to go with that
> ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't
> display the RAW images on the LCD monitor.

It's similar on the Maxxum 7D. In "Large/Fine" you get a roughly 3.5 MB
JPG image; in RAW+JPG you get a "Large/Standard" JPG of 1.6 MB (for the
same scene).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.