Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 368758" data-attributes="member: 12496">No, I can't prove it, sorry.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; Proof of what is can work, but proof of what isn't is pretty difficult.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; But my notion is otherwise, because the 100% zoom argument is mighty suggestive that there is no need for a smaller image.&nbsp; Do you really believe that zoom is an interpolated image?&nbsp; That large? Sure does not look like it.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; If NEF can zoom on the large JPG, why can't JPG?&nbsp; Plus ExifTool (which likes to show things like that) does not report one in there, except for NEF.&nbsp; There are obvious reasons for Raw, but I can't think of one for JPG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 368758, member: 12496"] No, I can't prove it, sorry. :) Proof of what is can work, but proof of what isn't is pretty difficult. :) But my notion is otherwise, because the 100% zoom argument is mighty suggestive that there is no need for a smaller image. Do you really believe that zoom is an interpolated image? That large? Sure does not look like it. :) If NEF can zoom on the large JPG, why can't JPG? Plus ExifTool (which likes to show things like that) does not report one in there, except for NEF. There are obvious reasons for Raw, but I can't think of one for JPG. [/QUOTE]

Verification