Photography Poll

[Josh66]

This reminds of me of Spinal Tap.
YouTube - Spinal Tap - 11

:lmao: Thanks. I needed that.

 

[musicaleCA]

The highest JPEG export quality in Photoshop is level 12, baseline standard. Level 10 is just as acceptable for most purposes (such as printing, so long as the JPEG is not enlarged to accommodate a larger print size), and is the highest quality setting available in Lightroom. As noted by KmH, there is no practical difference visually between a high-quality JPEG and a TIFF, especially when being viewed on a computer monitor.

Is there really a difference between LR's 10 and PS's 12? Is a PS JPG really "2 notches" (?) better than a LR JPG?

I always kinda thought that they were both the 'highest quality', and that PS just has more steps leading up to that.

Agree? Disagree?

If there is a difference, I don't think it's noticeable at all. I was just noting that if you want to be anal retentive about it, 12 in PS is probably marginally better...perhaps if you compared the two results pixel-by-pixel.

Haven't we been over this already LisaMarie?


Go spend some time on Wikipedia and learn your image formats.

Or, she could come here, to the "beginner's forum" of The PhotoForum and ask questions of people who know the answers and get polite replies.

I'll overlook that quoting someone like that is what I easily consider an attempt to quote out-of-context (disregarding the full body text of my previous remark removes the context that—in my view—justifies me being a little perturbed).

Her question regarding the quality of JPEG exports from LR have already been essentially tackled here. Excuse me for being a little miffed about us (I and other forum members) seemingly having to repeat ourselves in different threads to get our points across. (That is, answering various permutations of what is in essence the same question, or a series of closely related questions; it could be better handled in one thread, for the benefit of all, rather than two or three).

 

[Henry Peach]

...which file (also im not sure if thats the right trerminology but if not please let me know the proper term) majority of you use when exporting your pictures out of a picture processing program, exampe Tiff, dng, pdf, jpeg, ect..

I start with raw, and process in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. If that's all the processing the photo needs I store the raw file, and convert to jpeg for prints, web display, etc... If I have to edit in Photoshop I save the edited file as a tiff or psd. Once again when it comes time for print or web I convert to jpeg.

Also, does anyone else notice the difference between jpegs, and the other larger picture storing ..files?

Other than file size no. If converted properly there is no visual difference between a print from a tiff/psd and a jpeg.

The problem with jpegs is that every new save increased compression, which can eventually lead to artifacts. Honestly though, you've got to start with a really messed up file, or just go overboard on the re-saving to actually damage the photo file in a way that would be noticable.

 

[Henry Peach]

Is there really a difference between LR's 10 and PS's 12? Is a PS JPG really "2 notches" (?) better than a LR JPG?

I recently did some personal testing to see if I could reduce file size for uploading family snaps to SmugMug. I took the same photo, and saved it in PS as a quality 12 jpeg and a quality 8 jpeg. I could see no difference in 8"x12" prints or pixel peeping. I'm not going to do this with client work, but in general I think the difference is pretty hard to see.

 

[KmH]

Is there really a difference between LR's 10 and PS's 12? Is a PS JPG really "2 notches" (?) better than a LR JPG?

I recently did some personal testing to see if I could reduce file size for uploading family snaps to SmugMug. I took the same photo, and saved it in PS as a quality 12 jpeg and a quality 8 jpeg. I could see no difference in 8"x12" prints or pixel peeping. I'm not going to do this with client work, but in general I think the difference is pretty hard to see.

True, but save them each 15 times and compare again.

Then you'll see a difference.

 

[Josh66]

Is there really a difference between LR's 10 and PS's 12? Is a PS JPG really "2 notches" (?) better than a LR JPG?

I recently did some personal testing to see if I could reduce file size for uploading family snaps to SmugMug. I took the same photo, and saved it in PS as a quality 12 jpeg and a quality 8 jpeg. I could see no difference in 8"x12" prints or pixel peeping. I'm not going to do this with client work, but in general I think the difference is pretty hard to see.

A high quality JPG is already a pretty small file, how small is a 'medium' quality JPG? I don't see how there could be any possible advantage to using less than the highest quality offered, other than file size. As small as JPGs are to begin with, I don't see how a few less KB matters.

EDIT--> Just for comparison, one on my RAWs is 6.74MB, the full-size (2202x3302 - I had to crop it a little) JPG at the highest quality of that same picture is 1.89MB. The resized (533x800) version of that same picture is 191KB. <--EDIT

How big of a difference are we talking about (in file size only)?

Is there really a difference between LR's 10 and PS's 12? Is a PS JPG really "2 notches" (?) better than a LR JPG?

I recently did some personal testing to see if I could reduce file size for uploading family snaps to SmugMug. I took the same photo, and saved it in PS as a quality 12 jpeg and a quality 8 jpeg. I could see no difference in 8"x12" prints or pixel peeping. I'm not going to do this with client work, but in general I think the difference is pretty hard to see.

True, but save them each 15 times and compare again.

Then you'll see a difference.

I understand what you're saying, but why would anyone do that?
You can make anything fail...

EDIT
I just checked... In LR the JPG quality goes up to 100, not 10 - so there!

 

[eminart]

I'll overlook that quoting someone like that is what I easily consider an attempt to quote out-of-context (disregarding the full body text of my previous remark removes the context that&#8212;in my view&#8212;justifies me being a little perturbed).

Her question regarding the quality of JPEG exports from LR have already been essentially tackled here. Excuse me for being a little miffed about us (I and other forum members) seemingly having to repeat ourselves in different threads to get our points across. (That is, answering various permutations of what is in essence the same question, or a series of closely related questions; it could be better handled in one thread, for the benefit of all, rather than two or three).

Thanks for "overlooking" that. I feel like I really dodged a bullet there.

But, couldn't you just....... I don't know........ not respond if you feel like you've already answered her question? It's a little ridiculous to me that, on every internet forum, the "experts" get miffed when the noobs ask redundant questions. Is it really a big deal?

If you'll notice, this thread is NOT a duplicate of her other one. Maybe you didn't take time to really read and understand what she was asking. The first thread she asked about jpegs and image quality. This thread, she is polling to see what are the most popular file types. Could she have asked that question in her other thread? Sure, but she wouldn't have gotten as many responses.

I wasn't born knowing what a jpeg is. Maybe you were. Maybe you learned all about file types from wikipedia and didn't have to pester the busy experts to learn more. I don't know. But, I know that I, personally, like to ask a lot of questions and DISCUSS topics so that I have a full understanding. I think a forum is a good place for discussions.