Digital BW, The Print

On 07/01/2011 02:21 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> Apples/oranges: one wouldn't be scanning a negative if the camera in
> question had digital output. In cases where we are able to use the same lens
> on both analog and digital cameras, the color rendering characteristics of
> the capture media (film or ccd) still come into play, so there's no way that
> I can see to state positively that raw from the camera is better than raw
> from a scanner. The Vuescan instructions state that the reason one might
> want to same save scans as raw output is so that all other output formats
> can be generated as needed without additional scans, and not because the raw
> format is 'better.' Adobe's ability to read the Vuescan raw files is a
> fringe benefit.
>
>> Of course a RAW from a scanner is not as raw as a camera delivers

I did not see "better" in the line I wrote. If I would have written that 
a herring catched an hour ago is more raw than a matties herring at the 
fish shop you still should not conclude that I like one more than the 
other. The comment was made with demosaicing in mind and not a remark on 
what is better. Vuescan's RAW is not even considered raw in purist's 
views as it is more or less a Tiff with another name. Nevertheless the 
RAW export has its advantages.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |