In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

From: (jjs)

To be sure of the last - might it be okay to use virtually _lossless_ JPEG
format is adequate? (I mean JPEG format but with little to no
compression)?

Hi John,

Wrong NG for THAT discussion (grin) ... but yes, low compression jpeg is fine,
with little image quality loss *until* you start to make many edits and
saves.

Yep. Wrong group, and certainly I know the liabilites of saving,
re-opening and saving JPEGs over and over. I was a mature adult when JPEG
was invented.

And if your exposure or white balance is off to start with you're better off
making the first level of corrections when doing the RAW conversion.

Noted! (But don't digital photographers use color correcting filters? )

Earlier I said I abhor digital, but part of my job is digital video. White
balance, pixels (and shape of them), all that is quite familiar. I was
speaking of digital stills which I don't do except to spew a quick
informal image to the net.

If you're curious about this and want to see for yourself send me an email
(change .comedy to the obvious) and if you want to send me a blank CD and
postage I'll send you a 1Ds RAW file, a free trial version of the Capture One
program I use to convert to tiff [...]

That's very generous of you, Bill. Let me check back in three weeks when I
return to work. Yes, I'm finally on vacation, after years. (pardon my
delirum!)