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