My understanding is that jpg compression achieves smaller filesize by
discarding data. I've never heard of exceptions to that at any level
of jpegging.
You can confirm that by examining a file at the pixel level, but why
argue? If you wish to retain all the data the camera collected, just
don't jpg. If you feel you don't need all the data, the issue is
moot.
My pro shooter's opinion was that the publisher was going to be
receiving a jpgged file from him anyway, and that magazine quality
print wouldn't be able to reproduce the minutiae of uncompressed data
anyway, so wotthehell.
I'm not sure he does "art" shows of his work, too. He's been an
editorial National Geographic photographer all his life.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
HOT OFF THE PRESS! SAILING SEPIA IMAGES VOL II:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/elfpix
Check out my Spring daily photograph project at:
http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6
And Summer:
http://tinyurl.com/22juo5s
Autumn now complete here:
http://tinyurl.com/26pdgz9
Winter concluded here:
http://tinyurl.com/2co5wkg
