Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alf92 <alf921@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: fr.rec.photo.materiel
Subject: Re: 200mm vs 500mm
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 15:14:42 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <td5jo3$2go9n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <td3dlo$er0$1@shakotay.alphanet.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 13:14:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="46bf7a82c98b4b0094cf2a60b7716400";
	logging-data="2646327"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180za8dStY0/U2Slz6uw58l"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u1j+S+wOXkzd6mZ3qvO8htdKBy0=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00
Bytes: 1197

"Benoît L." (le 11/08/2022 à 19:18:48) :

> Tout à l’heure, je recommence en raw, parce qu’on voit vraiment l’effet
> jpeg sur l’une d’elles. Laquelle ? :)
>
> <https://www.cjoint.com/doc/22_08/LHlrqIiHMZi_Comparaison-200-500.jpg>

le JPEG ne peut à lui-seul justifier une telle différence