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. Fergusonmailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx508-563-6822New England landscapes, wooden boats and raceshttp://www.landsedgephoto.comHOT OFF THE PRESS! SAILING SEPIA IMAGES VOL II:http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/elfpixCheck out my Spring daily photograph project at:http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6And Summer:http://tinyurl.com/22juo5sAutumn now complete here:http://tinyurl.com/26pdgz9Winter concluded here:http://tinyurl.com/2co5wkg
|
