From: John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:12:19 -0700
Organization: Sept. all the time
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <ot68r3$bb9$1@dont-email.me>
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>
<0001HW.1FA6C09100E123AA7000012602CF@news.giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 04:12:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="40c128743501074a9b0c0f9d7549841c";
logging-data="11625"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fq0Cy9SZ6eZoJ+CXAJYFNC1pDrKn4/L8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <0001HW.1FA6C09100E123AA7000012602CF@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9IMH7+nQ+FobH13Cgnv/he2gfh4=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 10/29/17   PDT 7:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> 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.
> 
Listen to The Duck. He knows whereof he speaks. Me, I worked only on V2 
and 3 of LR.....