| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2007 12:46:32 PM · #1 |
When you export a picture from LR into jpeg, there is a slider for the quality. But I am used to seeing quality differently, like in Adobe RAW, where you select 8, 10, or 12, etc. Does anybody know how to convert the 0-100 slider in LR to the normal jpeg quality numbers?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:22:39 PM · #2 |
AdobeRAWValue/AdobeRAWMaxValue*100
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:34:01 PM · #3 |
Thanks, I'm not at home right now, but is the max value 12? Or is there something higher? So if I want to save it as a 10 I have 10/12*100 which gets me around 83. Does that sound right?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:38:11 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by travis_cooper:
Thanks, I'm not at home right now, but is the max value 12? Or is there something higher? So if I want to save it as a 10 I have 10/12*100 which gets me around 83. Does that sound right? |
Should be close enough I think. Under the hood they are using the same engines and algorithms - so I'd suspect a straight conversion as a ratio will work out.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:58:00 PM · #5 |
| Older versions of Photoshop only have a range of quality settings from 1-10. I think in newer versions which go to 12 (take that, Spinal Tap!), the compression is lossless when set to maximum quality. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 01:59:33 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think in newer versions which go to 12 (take that, Spinal Tap!), |
You know, I wouldn't be amazed to find out that that's the only real reason it does go to 12 ;)
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 02:00:00 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Older versions of Photoshop only have a range of quality settings from 1-10. I think in newer versions which go to 12 (take that, Spinal Tap!), the compression is lossless when set to maximum quality. |
Yeah, in PS I just set it to maximum and let it do its thing. But I haven't seen that in LR, it is just a 0-100 slider. I gather from Gordon's formula it is obviously just a percentage. So what percentage does maximum quality start at? Or should I just use 100 all the time.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 02:05:13 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by travis_cooper:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Older versions of Photoshop only have a range of quality settings from 1-10. I think in newer versions which go to 12 (take that, Spinal Tap!), the compression is lossless when set to maximum quality. |
Yeah, in PS I just set it to maximum and let it do its thing. But I haven't seen that in LR, it is just a 0-100 slider. I gather from Gordon's formula it is obviously just a percentage. So what percentage does maximum quality start at? Or should I just use 100 all the time. |
Actually most of the scales are pretty much arbitrary. Treating it like a ratio/ percentage should get you in the rough range though. I wouldn't ever bother encoding at 100 on that scale - it'll be probably 2 or 3 times larger than at 95, but with no real quality difference. The upper ends of JPEG quality scales are typically just mathematical limits, rather than practical points to use.
You'll probably find that if you try it that lightroom only really has 10 levels or something anyway. I'd guess that if you try 93 and 99 it'll be the same or almost identical, or 82 and 89 and so on.
That's why the formula I posted earlier will be close enough I'd think - it'll get you roughly the same results.
Message edited by author 2007-11-16 14:10:23.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 04:21:58 PM · #9 |
Hmmm, whilst on the subject of Lightroom JPG. Can anybody answer me this..
I have noticed that the JPGs produced by Lightroom are a smaller filesize than those produced by Canons DPP software. To test this, I converted one wedding (around 800 shots) to JPG in DPP and the same wedding in Lightroom.. THe DPP converted files needed the best part of 2 DVDs for storage, the Lightroom converted fit snugly onto a single DVD.. any ideas why this is? I converted both at full quality, same DPI etc... so weird.
(PS, it s friday night so I am on the wine again so forgive spelling mistakes).
EDIT - just something else, checkibng the JPGs are 100% I can see no difference in image quality either..
Message edited by author 2007-11-16 16:23:29. |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 04:25:01 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Simms:
(PS, it s friday night so I am on the wine again so forgive spelling mistakes). |
Are your sure that the first time you didn't set your software to burn two copies? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 05:07:34 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Simms:
THe DPP converted files needed the best part of 2 DVDs for storage, the Lightroom converted fit snugly onto a single DVD.. any ideas why this is? I converted both at full quality, same DPI etc... so weird. |
Are you saving the EXIF data as well? |
|
|
|
11/16/2007 05:10:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Hmmm, whilst on the subject of Lightroom JPG. Can anybody answer me this..
I have noticed that the JPGs produced by Lightroom are a smaller filesize than those produced by Canons DPP software. To test this, I converted one wedding (around 800 shots) to JPG in DPP and the same wedding in Lightroom.. THe DPP converted files needed the best part of 2 DVDs for storage, the Lightroom converted fit snugly onto a single DVD.. any ideas why this is? I converted both at full quality, same DPI etc... so weird.
(PS, it s friday night so I am on the wine again so forgive spelling mistakes).
EDIT - just something else, checkibng the JPGs are 100% I can see no difference in image quality either.. |
Full Quality is probably the telling phrase here. For some JPEG algorithms, 100% means 3x the data that 95% means, with no actual advantage in terms of visual quality. I've read that Lightroom has essentially locked out that 100% level, so 93% is high as it goes - you never hit that 100% wasteful level in LR.
DPP sounds like it is using the theoretical limits, rather than practical ones for encoding quality. Try both at a level of 95% or 1 down from 'max' and see how you go.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 05:27:26 PM · #13 |
Simms... it's probably the level of sharpening versus noise reduction versus algorythm used for demosaicing being done in LR versus DPP. One or all of those are probably coming into play in determining how big the jpeg is.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2007 06:28:02 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Simms:
(PS, it s friday night so I am on the wine again so forgive spelling mistakes). |
Are your sure that the first time you didn't set your software to burn two copies? ;-) |
??? what? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 05:35:14 PM EST.
