"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...

snip

I did shoot these in RAW with no compression on the RAW. I use a batch
conversion macro in Lightroom (I think), and had it set up 640x480 size
with auto sharpen Landscape. I have never seen a jpg compression ratio,
I thought jpg just compressed it as much as possible. I also have never
used a batch conversion before, and never reduce the size so small, so I
really don't know if this is the result to expect or not.

If you're not familiar with jpeg file compression you may want to check
out the link below. Every time you compress a jpeg file it will lose
detail. It's cumulative and you can't go back. It's always best to work
on a copy so the original retains its detail.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/for...mythsfacts.htm

Thanks for the link. That is why I shot in RAW, and don't use jpgs except
to upload to the web, which I normally set the quality to "maximum", but
since I was uploading a batch of files, I set the quality to a small size.
After reading your web site, I can see that is what Tom meant by
compression. I just thought it reduced the size of the physical size of
the image, it looks like it also changes the compression ratio.

Yep, more compression, more artifacts.