Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kaleun96, post: 5130009, member: 92635&quot;]Hypothetically though, you could take the JPGs from the camera and convert to TIFF for all of the stacking, stitching, and editing procedures, and then at the very end convert back to JPG and end up with a better quality photo than if you had used JPG for the entire process? At least that&#039;s how I&#039;m understanding things but might be wrong. I realise that&#039;s backwards (going from 8bit up to 16bit) but would avoid the issue of degrading JPGs each time they&#039;re saved.</p><p><br /></p><p>If that&#039;s the case, I&#039;d be curious how it compares to: a) using JPG for the whole process, and b) starting with RAW and then going to TIFF before finally JPG. I guess Winter is as good a time as any for these kinds of tests!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Yeah if there was lots of dynamic range like you have in a landscape photo RAW would definitely make sense but I don&#039;t think I&#039;ve noticed many 8-bit limitations unless I&#039;ve blown out highlights and try to dial them back in afterwards.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I&#039;d be curious to shoot in RAW+JPG and stack the TIFF converted RAW files and stack the JPG files and see how different the end result is. Perhaps the stacking software makes fewer &#039;mistakes&#039; with TIFF as well.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in