# Need help on Jpeg export settings in Lightroom 4.3



## KKCFamilyman (Jan 1, 2013)

I shoot with a 5d3 and my workflow is edit raw's then export them to full resolution jpegs for printing, archive etc. This is not for pro use but I was hoping the people of this forum would be able to advise the highest quality jpeg export settings to use just in case later on I want to print a large picture or something. Hd space is not a big concern since storage is cheap. Any help would be appreciated. I am unsure of the whole ppi and quality thing to be exact.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 1, 2013)

Try watching this video by Mark Wallace on the fundamentals of printing, ppi, resolution, etc. It is a good primer on what you are asking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg85Isdl1sQ


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 1, 2013)

And FWIW, I export to JPG with full quality, 8 MP and sharpening for screen. (Since these images will be uploaded to a web host for folks to view.) Obviously if you plan to print them as a primary function, sharpen for print or not at all. I previously exported smaller 2+ MP files but folks are beginning to make larger prints now so I decided to export 8 MP files from now on.

Keep in mind what the purpose of the exported files are intended for and export accordingly. If space and bandwidth issues are not important then export larger high res files and they'll be more useful.


----------



## helpful (Jan 1, 2013)

One thing I have found to watch for if I want maximum quality at the same time as reducing resolution, is to use small integer ratios, like 2/3rds or 1/2. For example, if my original image is 3200 pixels wide, then I could scale it by exactly one-half and get 1600 pixels wide. The result is much, much sharper and better quality than anything close to 1600 but not exactly 1600. For instance, scaling it to 1700 would actually reduce the quality worse than scaling it to 1600, if the original image was 1600, due to fudging and interpolation needed to produce a pixel matrix that are is not the ratio of simple integers multiplied by the original image.

You can see this visually if you are looking at an image at 100% and then scale it down a few percent. Suddenly the image gets softer, but it will get sharp again when you are at a ratio that is a simple ratio of two small integers like 3/4, 1/2, 2/3, etc.

If you are keeping full resolution, then this won't matter. (It sounds like the OP just wanted full size images, but the second poster talked about downsizing.)

Also, if you are scaling down by more than a 5:1 ratio or so, then it doesn't matter what scale you choose because there are so many pixels to choose from that fudging and interpolation doesn't end up making the image softer. So an image that is 320 pixels wide will be just as sharp as one that is 317 pixels wide, if the original was 3200 pixels wide, for example.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Jan 2, 2013)

Thanks for the responses i just want to save full res converted .cr2's as jpegs since cr2's take up too much hd space. They are for print and screen the ppi is what threw me off. I want the same jpeg compression the camera would give.


----------



## helpful (Jan 2, 2013)

ppi doesn't affect the actual image data in the JPEG file. It's just a flag to tell a printer or other method of rendering what dimensions you want the image to have.

For instance, let's say your JPEG is 3000 pixels wide.

If you set the ppi to 300, then you are specifying the image to be rendered 10 inches wide.

If you set the ppi to 200, then you are specifying the image to be rendered 15 inches wide.

But in both cases all the actual image data in the JPEG file is exactly the same.

What does affect the image data is the compression strength, smoothing options, contrast, and other settings you choose while processing the CR2 file.

JPEG is a called a "lossy" compression algorithm because it is almost impossible to use it without losing a tiny bit of data. But the data that is lost begins with image information that is invisible to human eyesight, and then progressively gets more and more visible. That is why JPEG is so effective, because it compresses things that are not visible to human eyes to begin with, and only with significant compression can our eyes actually begin to see a difference.

Storing a JPEG at 100% compression takes far more space than storing at 95%, but the resulting image is impossible to distinguish, assuming that all the processing settings like sharpness and contrast are the same.

The important thing is to never re-compress your original JPEG images, because an additional 5% of quality may be lost if you do that.

I am attaching a file that shows a JPEG that was re-saved (and re-compressed) 100 times. Even though the lowest quality setting was 86%, as you can see, the image has been degraded terribly.

I also suggest using a somewhat lower contrast setting for your JPEG images in order to retain as much detail in both highlights and shadows.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 2, 2013)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Hd space is not a big concern since storage is cheap.



You're right about that and this is why I can't really see why you would ever want to delete your RAW files. I'd never ever "lock" my work to a lossy, essentially non-editable format!

Don't get me wrong on the RAW deleting topic, I do go through my photos and do selection editing and discard the ones I don't like. This way the space usage doesn't get out of hand.

You're using Lightroom 4.3 at the moment, so you must be familiar with the process version 2012. I've re-edited dozens of photos that were originally edited in LR 2.x and 3.x with PV 2003 and 2010. This would not be possible if I hadn't saved my raw files. And yes, re-editing does do wonders even to old files.

Also if I understood correctly, you don't even "re-import" the exported jpegs back to Lightroom. If that's true, you're kind of missing the point of having a digital asset management system in the first place.

My suggestion would be to take a new (hard) look at your workflow instead of trying to figure out which are the best settings for the worst way to go.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, but it just makes me cringe that you're essentially throwing away possibilities achieved with your expensive camera.


----------



## sandymandy (Jan 2, 2013)

If i wanna print out jpgs with some Kodak (or else) instant printers u can find in store should i change the JPG colorspace to AdobeRGB first? Or is it nonsense since these instant printer machines arent that good anyway?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 28, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> If i wanna print out jpgs with some Kodak (or else) instant printers u can find in store should i change the JPG colorspace to AdobeRGB first? Or is it nonsense since these instant printer machines arent that good anyway?



I'm no expert but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently and I believe that qualifies me to help... that and the fact that I did do some online research about AdobeRGB vs sRGB about a year ago. There is a lot of mind numbing discussions out there that essentially end up at the fact that no one has any business using AdobeRGB unless they know why they need AdobeRGB. People that are doing specific work in print houses, magazines, etc and they have specific reasons for needing that color space spec. In fact, I also remember some mention of the fact that you may even be hurting yourself by using AdobeRGB but I honestly don't remember much about it except that I came to the conclusion that sRGB was where I needed to stay and I haven't heard much to change my mind since.

Maybe this thread will eventually shed more light on the subject.


----------



## RMC33 (Jan 28, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > If i wanna print out jpgs with some Kodak (or else) instant printers u can find in store should i change the JPG colorspace to AdobeRGB first? Or is it nonsense since these instant printer machines arent that good anyway?
> ...



From what I have seen sRGB is the standard for 99% of things. I do know it is a much smaller color space then Adobe RGB and Pro-Photo. Now and again when I send off a photo I do get asked for Adobe or ProPhoto but never bothered to ask why. According to a good friend from college who works in a print house they are used for very specific printers and paper (pro-photo and AdobeRGB). Never bothered to ask but I think when I am there in February I will shoot him a few questions.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 28, 2013)

japhoto said:


> You're right about that and this is why I can't really see why you would ever want to delete your RAW files. I'd never ever "lock" my work to a lossy, essentially non-editable format!



I asked the same question in some lr forum and got the usual answer "you don't really need/want that"  ... but I disagree, I have many shots I want to keep for reference (like "don't do this again", landmarks/signs, tech. crappy but still memorable shots) that I don't need to keep in raw. My solution: Export to jpeg w/o keywords in the same location, auto re-import into lr, then use syncomatic to copy the keywords etc to the jpeg. 

A 60d dng raw file takes about 23mb, a compressed dng about 10mb, a jpeg about 1mb - that's something to think about no matter how "cheap" hd space has become.



sandymandy said:


> Or is it nonsense since these instant printer machines arent that good anyway?



It isn't about "good", but about "different" - any printer might very well print colors from the raw file that aren't included in srgb. So the safe bet is to use photopro, the downside is that this isn't wysiwyg because your partly flying blind - the photopro space cannot be displayed on a lcd monitor either. 

Your best option is to have a proofing file from the target printer and use softproofing like with lr4, that will make a much larger difference than juggling with colorspaces because it usually won't matter much unless comparing some far in between shots side by side.


----------

