From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:30:47 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <301020170930473200%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <> <> <> <ot5giq$1mtk$> <> <ot5lh5$1tq5$> <> <ot5rs9$60q$> <> <> <ot76k8$5di$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="a6f0ee69e2840d17357faef70c37ec27";
logging-data="21774"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Mt3q41I35SEMA9xVmFaq+"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2FWeuS+NdGoAt9j2l9nQawPcigc=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <ot76k8$5di$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "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.

everyone understands that saving to a jpeg is lossy. 

what you don't understand is that there is only *one* save, no matter
how many times the original image is edited. 

>   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.

in fact, it's quite powerful and goes well beyond what the file system
can do.

>   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.

except that you *still* don't understand how lightroom works.

>   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.

nobody said they weren't lossy.