In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
| over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
| or an imitation?

It's in the EXIF data:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D800
Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

But that implies it was taken as JPG.

no it doesn't.

the exif data is preserved when editing.

I haven't
researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
seem to generally show over-compression when
viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
would probably still be visible at full size.

only if it's a low quality jpeg.

Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?

of course not. where did you get that ridiculous idea?

Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place,
due simply to the need to have a universally supported
format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone
who's actually going to work on the photo not
shoot RAW?

they would shoot raw, however, they still need to convert it to a jpeg
to post the image.