From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:35:18 -0500
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 06:35:18 -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.1FA762160106FEA2700000B5F2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: A lightroom question
Newsgroups: alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
References: <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> <0padvctakfoakuafdfov009u8q7bkgur6l@4ax.com> <ot76k8$5di$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-eRBufZpqCraITxC1USSE2M5DvxX91o0CJWj/A4eKZv36IlxQkNHFAyQgHJ0x8OvV4w6UhaiI1JdKjo7!u4vv8suHPjRY4TAZGUTIQQH0jlGqrcglFN6XyMzHSf3y8RGxRiqxK2CH6bp9+xIM89IlHIkqXfZC!y63Zf8BjlZI=
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: 3700
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 30, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article <ot76k8$5di$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

<<Contentious stuff snipped>>
>
> 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.

I believe we are talking at cross purposes.

SOOC JPGs are processed in-camera, and when compared with the corresponding 
RAW files there is lossy in-camera compression.
There is a reason I went from shooting RAW only to RAW+JPG. With the Fujifilm 
X-Series cameras the SOOC JPGs also have the Fujifilm film emulations 
applied. These film emulations are not part of the RAW/RAF files.

Once imported into LR that original JPG will suffer no further compression. 
However, since that SOOC JPG is an original which should not be adjusted 
directly, with your editing workflow you would either make a copy, or a bmp, 
or tiff to edit. With my LR/PS workflow, and as a matter of fact the 
standalone On1 &  Exposure X3 workflows, all use XMP sidecar files so that 
all edits are nondestructive.Remember that with your bmp, or tiff copy, you 
have a copy of an original lossy JPG. This is why, shooting RAW only, or 
RAW+JPG, rather than JPG only are the better shooting options.

When it comes to the need for a JPG to share, regardless of what the original 
file was, JPG, RAW, DNG, TIFF, PSD, there will be compression applied to the 
created export JPG, resulting in a lossy file at the export destination, but 
we all understand that JPG is going to be a second generation JPG if created 
from the original SOOC JPG, and it will be compressed, and lossy when 
compared with the original file.

If the exported JPG is sourced from the LR adjusted RAW, DNG, TIFF, PSD it 
will actually be a first generation JPG. In all cases the LR user will 
control the level of compression, and any resizing in that export dialog, and 
in the case of my exported JPGs there is no expectation that any further 
editing, or resaves should be made.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck