From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:06:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:06:09 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1FA6C09100E123AA7000012602CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Newsgroups: alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
References: <osqdji017ak@news3.newsguy.com> <0001HW.1FA0F96C030386DD70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <ossodb0278v@news3.newsguy.com> <0001HW.1FA22B1B034B2B927000073692CF@news.giganews.com> <0001HW.1FA581F7009678177000012602CF@news.giganews.com> <ot4s9n02t0d@news6.newsguy.com> <0001HW.1FA6355200C080F07000012602CF@news.giganews.com> <ot56fi0g5@news6.newsguy.com> <ot5giq$1mtk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0001HW.1FA68BD300D4C70E7000012602CF@news.giganews.com> <ot5lh5$1tq5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0001HW.1FA69D7C00D8EABE7000012602CF@news.giganews.com> <ot5rs9$60q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Lines: 115
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Rm0SPnpxSVKqdYyOkero9pCabsy1z7vWyBtCnzme/yxiA0Yjn7iju481authR7znzNZu6Q0OXs5GLl4!uLTrp/FvjkmLE0TWTTG16NvcbWFcL2MGNDFSuWgYf7imT42Kg9J7LedekbLuMnSPPyaW7yy9CB8L!BcArcC5EpfY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6881
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1571261068
X-Received-Bytes: 7124
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 29, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article <ot5rs9$60q$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>  wrote
>
> > The original JPEG has lost all it is ever going to lose, there is no
> "final
> > save" in LR.
>
> You take a picture as JPG.

Yup! That sets your base original.

> That's loss #1.

No loss, it is converted in-camera from the RAW data to an original JPEG 
which is imported into LR.
>
> You then edit it, say 5 times.

You can edit a 100 virtual copies, you are not editing the originally 
imported JPEG.

> Each time it’s saved in LR and there's no loss to the original.

It isn’t saved after each edit, each edit is written to XMP sidecar files.
>
> That's good. LR is saving the bitmap image along with a history of changes you've made.

Nope. That is not how LR works with virtual copies. You are speculating on 
how LR works without any actual knowledge, or experience. Don’t project 
your ignorance into a thread where you are just guessing. I have been using 
LR since the first beta.
>
> Each time you work on it, you're really working on the bitmap and LR is saving that, along with
the edit history data.

Nope.

> What's different is that LR is hiding that complication and you don't need to keep track of
various saved files.

You are guessing that is what is happening, but you are wrong.
>
> LR is doing that for you. But once you decide to export it as an edited image in JPG that’s loss
#2. You can't edit the image and then save a new image as 
JPG without a second loss. You can do 5 lossless edits inside LR, but the 
final save will be lossy.

Here you are close. The edited image is exported, and the export criterea for 
resizing, file type, compression if the file type is lossy. If it is a JPEG 
the loss will occur with the file at the export location. That file never 
makes it back to LR, and other than posting it using whatever method to 
recipients it will not be present on LR for any further editing, the degree 
of loss is deliberate and planned.
>
> I don't mean to complicate things. It's just that most people are not familiar with the differences
> in file formats, so I think it's worth reiterating that JPG is lossy.

Why do you think that I might not be familiar with JPEGs? I certainly am well 
aware that JPG is a lossy format.

> Otherwise it's very easy to drop out data unnecessarily. The LR feature is nice, but
> it's still a process that drops out data twice if you edit the photo.

Again, your knowledge and understanding of the function of LR is quite wrong.

> So you take a JPG, put it into LR, edit as you like, and eventually save a version as JPG.

No, I edit a virtual copy of the JPEG, or RAW file as I like. I don’t save 
a version as a JPEG within LR. However, if I choose to export an edited 
version of that JPEG, or RAW file I can export it to the export location of 
my choice, as the file type of my choice () all without reintroducing it into 
LR.

> I take a photo as JPG, save my first edit as BMP or TIF, then save all other versions the same
way. I end
> up with a folder containing numerous versions of the photo. You end up with a history in LR. If I
edit it 5 times and maybe save 5 versions there’s no 
loss. If necessary I might eventually convert one of those to JPG to send to 
someone.

Well if that works for you, go ahead. You are probably never going to use any 
Adobe applications, so I don’t see how you have done anything to solve 
Peter’s original LR issue, or if you even understood it.
>
> We both then end up with 2 lossy steps: The original JPG photo and the final JPG save of an edited
image.
> The only difference is that LR is managing the file storage for you so you don't need to save TIFs
or
> maintain systematic file storage.

You really don’t understand anything about LR.

>
> > > That's basically what LR is doing -- saving some kind of backup bitmap
> image.
> >
> > Nope, an XMP sidecar file is not some kind of backup bitmap image. It is a
> > set of instructions detailing the edits and adjustments.
> >
> > <http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp.html>
> > <http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/tag/xmp-sidecar-files>
>
> We discussed this once before. It's all bitmaps. Any raster image is essentially a bitmap. A JPG
> is a compressed bitmap with some data dropped out. A TIF is usually just a compressed bitmap.
> A GIF is a bitmap. A PNG is a bitmap. Those are all just different ways to store the image data.
> Proprietary formats, like Paint Shop Pro's PSP or the PS PSD, store the image plus editing
> history, unmerged layers, etc. But the image is still going to be a bitmap -- a grid of pixel color
> values. That's what goes to the printer or the computer screen. That's what you're applying
filters,
> sharpening, etc to. Those are all just mathematical formulae applied to bitmaps. Increase the pixel
> values and you've lightened. Increase the difference between contiguous pixels and you've
sharpened.
> Of course it gets very sophisticated when it can do things like remove a chain link fence from the
image,
> but it's still essentially the same thing.

You are obviously trapped in bitmap theory.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck