From: Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Full headers:
From: "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:39:44 -0400
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <ot76k8$5di$>
References: <> <> <> <> <ot5giq$1mtk$> <> <ot5lh5$1tq5$> <> <ot5rs9$60q$> <> <>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Print Article
Forward Article
"Eric Stevens"<> wrote

| This way you can go on editing and saving JPGs until you are blue in
| the face without accumulating corruptions of the original JPG.

  I understood that and went out of my way to clarify
to SD that I agreed with his description. All I ever
said was that every save to a new JPG file, out of LR,
will involve lossiness and that that should be recognized.

  LR provides a way for you to not have to think about
that. I'm only warning not to get lulled by the convenience.
LR is essentially providing an organizing service so that
you don't have to deal with the file system so much.
Nothing wrong with that.

  The difference is that I'm talking in terms of the
data. Some people seem to have very strong feelings
about the word "bitmap". But that's what the images
are. It helps to understand the format.

  The one thing I'm not sure I agree with: How is it
that "SOOC" JPGs are not lossy? JPG compression is
lossy and various camera settings applied to the
JPG will limit the data. There seems to be some kind
of cult developing about the purity of SOOC.