From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:28:50 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <291020171728506349%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <ot5giq$1mtk$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="9273"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19A1YZ1HqJ0RH5PcefCY3M9"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2Zg30CBEkOkCU9DpuAujcxeN/hI=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <ot5giq$1mtk$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
> | make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
> | working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
> | there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
> | each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.
> |
> | <>
> |
>     He's a bit evasive, focussing on how you can
> make edits and save them as memory in LR. What
> you say matches his description. That's fine, but if
> you edit a JPG you eventually have to save it again
> and that's going to degrade it. No way around that.
> "Only one change" is one change too many if it wasn't
> necessary. If you work with them in LR as
> TIFs and never deal with JPG except to save for
> some target that requires JPG, isn't that the best
> option?

no. raw is the best option.

>   In other words, why not RAW -> TIF  and then
> only save to JPG if you have to for the sake of size
> or recipient limitations? JPG shouldn't be thought of
> as a storage format. It's only used for photos
> because it's universal and most people don't edit.
> It's *not* used because it's an appropriate format.

tiff is not the best choice because tiff is 'cooked'.