[Taxacom] Digital herbarium

[Sean Edwards]

Yes, with storage getting cheaper and cheaper, I'd avoid jpegs if you can. Although minimum compression (12?) isn't bad, you may still get camera sharpening that is not to taste and not undoable. I have never recorded in jpeg so I really can't comment much. I'd definitely look at a higher end compact (e.g. Canon S90) that does RAW, but you will need to sort your workflow. Photoshop droplets will automatically batch-produce what you want for e.g. web use, whilst you keep your 'digital negatives' to generate anything else you may want.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sean Edwards, Vine Cottage, The Street, Thursley, Surrey GU8 6QF
email: sean.r.edwards at btinternet.com
tel:01252-702-890 cell:07768-706-295


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fabian Haas 
  To: Sean Edwards 
  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Digital herbarium


  Good to hear that you are happy with fixed lens cameras, also called 
  Bridge cameras as they stand between DSLR and teh very compact stuff.

  Well I did not think of it, because I did not think of them having the 
  image quality. Though very good indeed, not quite as my Nikon DSLR. 
  Definitely has no problems with dust, but depending on what you spend, 
  they have less pixels than the DSLR, with a good overlap around 10 
  Mpixels. The one I have has a fairly agressive JPG compression and 
  internal image processing, so in JPG you indeed loose details.

  In the end, the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating! So make 
  a test series and check out if you can see everything what you want. No 
  philosophical objections against this type of camera, if they do the job 
  even better.

  Fabian