Le 11/22/07 1:00 AM, Brianna Laugher a écrit :
As someone else said, providing the RAW format allows a reuser to
optimise it for various print qualities, rather than optimising for
screen (and probably smaller file size at that).
This is a feature of the RAW format. As far as I know, it doesn't have
anything to do with high resolution.
And I didn't make that quote up. :) Whether or not
there is any
discernible difference, (at least some) publishers feel there is. I'm
inclined to trust them on that point rather than insist that JPG ought
to be good enough.
Brianna, apparently your contact mentioned DNG, but the excerpt you
quoted only mentions "higher resolution files". 300dpi JPEG files are
not "just good enough". They're high resolution files. Now, if we want
to follow the standard of the printing industry, the priority would be
to allow TIFF files.
I agree adding DNG to our list of supported file types would be a good
thing but I seriously doubt that it will bring Commons more high
resolution files. It would be more useful, I think, to educate our users
not to downsample, and so on.
This thread reminds me of our discussion about colour management and how
users were to be encouraged to shoot RAW and use a colour chart. It was
a good idea, of course, but it seemed a bit premature when the vast
majority of our users never pay attention to white balance or don't even
know what it is.
Jastrow