Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 452448" data-attributes="member: 12496">? Oops!&nbsp;&nbsp; I definitely do not want to pursue this any more (wrong road&nbsp; geeky comparisons instead of practical pictures that we can actually&nbsp; see), but will mention that I question your comparison, whatever it is.&nbsp; Only rhetorically, no answer sought.Here is&nbsp; my quicky comparison:<img src="http://www.scantips.com/g2/compare.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />This is Photoshop menu Image - Calculations - Difference.&nbsp; It is your&nbsp; two images, and the second has been updated to show just the differences from&nbsp; the first one, the brightness of the difference in the red channel.&nbsp; All differences are highlighted there.&nbsp; Frankly, I see absolutely&nbsp; nothing. File size is even the same, which is something for JPG.Just for example of the tool, here:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.scantips.com/basics09b.html#100" target="_blank">What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?</a>is the same tool showing the difference in a 100% JPG and a PNG file&nbsp; (lossless compression).&nbsp; Even at 100%, JPG is still JPG, and the&nbsp; differences (here) are all edge effects.&nbsp; The only point of mentioning this is&nbsp; to show how the tool shows differences in pixels. If there are any differences.Try listening to the words.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; At most, you can go back to the TIF you got from the raw editor. It contains whatever edits the raw editor did (apparently those you seek).&nbsp;&nbsp; It is NOT the original raw data which you otherwise could have obtained, when you might become disillusioned with the camera settings you made months ago, instead of for todays scene.&nbsp; One huge advantage of raw is that we can see it before we have to decide.The same Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) module is in Photoshop, Lightroom, and Elements.&nbsp; All work the same (Elements does omit all but the basics features however).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 452448, member: 12496"] ? Oops! I definitely do not want to pursue this any more (wrong road geeky comparisons instead of practical pictures that we can actually see), but will mention that I question your comparison, whatever it is. Only rhetorically, no answer sought. Here is my quicky comparison: [IMG]http://www.scantips.com/g2/compare.jpg[/IMG] This is Photoshop menu Image - Calculations - Difference. It is your two images, and the second has been updated to show just the differences from the first one, the brightness of the difference in the red channel. All differences are highlighted there. Frankly, I see absolutely nothing. File size is even the same, which is something for JPG. Just for example of the tool, here: [URL="http://www.scantips.com/basics09b.html#100"]What does JPG Quality Losses Mean?[/URL] is the same tool showing the difference in a 100% JPG and a PNG file (lossless compression). Even at 100%, JPG is still JPG, and the differences (here) are all edge effects. The only point of mentioning this is to show how the tool shows differences in pixels. If there are any differences. Try listening to the words. :) At most, you can go back to the TIF you got from the raw editor. It contains whatever edits the raw editor did (apparently those you seek). It is NOT the original raw data which you otherwise could have obtained, when you might become disillusioned with the camera settings you made months ago, instead of for todays scene. One huge advantage of raw is that we can see it before we have to decide. The same Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) module is in Photoshop, Lightroom, and Elements. All work the same (Elements does omit all but the basics features however). [/QUOTE]

Verification