Next <
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 09:04:12 -0400
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <ot7824$7vv$>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <ot5giq$1mtk$> <>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Priority: 3
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Print Article
Forward Article
"PeterN" <"peter,newdelete"> wrote

| Yes. But I was responding to the situation where there already are JPEGs.

  Yes. Sorry to complicate things. There's a
debate raging that's completely unnecessary.
Everyone agrees with this that you said:

"If I have a JPEG in my LR collection that has been previously
exported, since later adjustments will be to the LR copy, and not the
exported JPEG, it will not cause further degradation."

  My only point was to not lose track and think
that LR is protecting from JPG lossiness. Not
a disagreement. Just a reminder that any export
from LR as JPG will be lossy. The earlier
exported JPG you referenced was lossy. The next
export will be lossy. The LR difference is that it's
not doing a lossy save internally when you do
edits. So it's fine only as long as the image is
being saved within LR.

  Maybe it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but the
fact that this question came up seems to me
an indicator of possible confusion due to the
convenience that LR offers. It's abstracting the
actual process, hiding the details of storing
bitmap data so that you can think of it as an
"edited JPG without loss".