What program do you use for post-processing?

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So I got my copy of Lightroom, and have enjoyed using it so far.

A quick question, when exporting the edited photos there is an option for 'quality' that is set to a default of 60. Can anyone explain what exactly this is controlling? And should I be using a different setting on it?

I've also noticed when I look at the exif data on my flickr page for photos I've edited in lightroom that the compression reads "JPEG (old version)" versus my other photos not shot in RAW that just read "JPEG". Any idea what it means?

It's controlling the size of the file. Smaller the number, the smaller the file. The smaller the file that shittier the quality. If storage isn't an issue, I'd crank it to a 100.

I have no idea what JPEG(old version) means. Have you tried the google?

[Bigtime]

100 it is from now on. That's what I thought.

I never even though to google the JPEG (old version) thing, trying that right now.

[flar]

There's no point in saving jpegs at 100% quality. Even your camera probably saves them around 97-98%. You won't notice a difference in quality between 98% and 100% but there will be a large difference in file size.

If you're saving them on your computer, use tiff, it's a lossless format. jpeg degrades every time you save it.

If you're posting photos on the web, save them at 80 or 85%. That's perfectly acceptable quality and they will download much, much faster.


As for the original question, moving to the Lightroom style workflow is highly recommended. I did it recently. You end up with a edit history that you can save and apply to multiple photos. It's non-destructive so you can go back anytime and change something. You only have to keep the raw files on your computer and you can just save the editing history for future use. You can easily output photos for printing or posting on the internet or for more intensive editing in Photoshop. It's just way better and faster than opening everything individually in Photoshop.

That said, I'm on Linux, so replace Photoshop with GIMP and Lightroom with Darktable. That's what I use, the only downside is GIMP still doesn't have 16-bit. Darktable is great example of top notch free software.

[Bigtime]

Excellent advice, I appreciate it!

[freeweed]

Just to confirm some thoughts on here - if you're in the least bit using a camera worth more than $100, or you're doing any sort of photo editing whatsoever, especially if you're using terms like "post-processing"...

Don't use JPEGs. Ever. They're an evil format designed for posting pictures on the interwebs back in the day when bandwidth was limited. By design, they're "lossy" meaning you lose image information just by creating one, but it's even worse - you lose information every single time you make an edit and save again.

I'm far from a quality nut, my camera is probably worth $50 right now, and it's been a few years since I even bothered touching up any image at all. But I've worked in image editing software and played around with various format specifications, and NO ONE who does even remotely serious photography should use JPEGs for anything other than posting to Facebook or Flickr. Disk (and flash card) space is cheap. Saving space by sacrificing quality is idiotic in this day and age.

While there have been some serious improvements to the format in recent years, it's still basically shit when it comes to serious image handling. It's the equivalent of buying a Ferrari and dressing it up to look like a Cavalier. If you're going to play with JPEGs, you might as well just get a cheap P&S camera and accept the default options in the first place. Because all those megapixels, high end lenses, SLR features... they're basically useless once you run them through JPEG compression a few times. You'll degrade your picture quality down to the point where you can't tell the difference.

Sadly, most P&S cameras still only let you take JPEG off the camera - but it's easy enough to convert to a proper format (TIFF, etc) on the computer. At least you're only dealing with a single generation loss.

(Obviously I'm being a tad dramatic, but honestly - the number of people I know who have $2000+ in camera gear that compress the shit out of their images is staggering)

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Just to confirm some thoughts on here - if you're in the least bit using a camera worth more than $100, or you're doing any sort of photo editing whatsoever, especially if you're using terms like "post-processing"...

Don't use JPEGs. Ever. They're an evil format designed for posting pictures on the interwebs back in the day when bandwidth was limited. By design, they're "lossy" meaning you lose image information just by creating one, but it's even worse - you lose information every single time you make an edit and save again.

I'm far from a quality nut, my camera is probably worth $50 right now, and it's been a few years since I even bothered touching up any image at all. But I've worked in image editing software and played around with various format specifications, and NO ONE who does even remotely serious photography should use JPEGs for anything other than posting to Facebook or Flickr. Disk (and flash card) space is cheap. Saving space by sacrificing quality is idiotic in this day and age.

While there have been some serious improvements to the format in recent years, it's still basically shit when it comes to serious image handling. It's the equivalent of buying a Ferrari and dressing it up to look like a Cavalier. If you're going to play with JPEGs, you might as well just get a cheap P&S camera and accept the default options in the first place. Because all those megapixels, high end lenses, SLR features... they're basically useless once you run them through JPEG compression a few times. You'll degrade your picture quality down to the point where you can't tell the difference.

Sadly, most P&S cameras still only let you take JPEG off the camera - but it's easy enough to convert to a proper format (TIFF, etc) on the computer. At least you're only dealing with a single generation loss.

(Obviously I'm being a tad dramatic, but honestly - the number of people I know who have $2000+ in camera gear that compress the shit out of their images is staggering)

Bigtime was referring to flickr so in his case JPEG is fine. If you shoot in RAW, Lightroom does't create a JPEG until you export it. The only time I'm exporting is if I'm uploading or emailing a picture.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Bigtime was referring to flickr so in his case JPEG is fine. If you shoot in RAW, Lightroom does't create a JPEG until you export it. The only time I'm exporting is if I'm uploading or emailing a picture.

Yeah, and that's generally a safe workflow. Problem comes up when people edit once, then export/save into JPEG, then re-edit without realizing the issue. Or convert en masse to save disk space.

Figured it's worth triple warning when someone asks general questions about the JPEG format.

[Bigtime]

I appreciate the heads up. So the best thing would be to save RAW files to JPEG if I'm putting them onto my Flickr account, and export another copy in TIFF to my computer if it is something I'd want to save.

[Ayreonaut]

I started using LR quite a while ago and love it. I probably edit my photos more than most people here (no hang-gliding giraffes or anything, no HDR either), but even for the slightest adjustments it's a very nice program.

BTW, I had no idea about all this jpeg stuff, perhaps it's time to start shooting RAW (I only edit once before uploading to Flickr).

[Bigtime]

If you are not shooting RAW you are actually pretty limited by what LR can do to your photos, you get a bunch more options when working with RAW shots.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

If you are not shooting RAW you are actually pretty limited by what LR can do to your photos, you get a bunch more options when working with RAW shots.

For me the best thing about shooting in RAW is you have the ability change your White Balance. When it a huge bonus when you're in idiot such as myself. Nothing sucks more than to take a bunch of shots outside and then realize your WB setting is Tungston.

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

If you are not shooting RAW you are actually pretty limited by what LR can do to your photos, you get a bunch more options when working with RAW shots.

I've never really felt limited with LR, but then again, I really don't get into any technical aspects of photography, I pretty much just point & shoot. I will eventually take the time to learn more, but for now I'm quite content with what I'm doing. But I'm quite certain we look at post-processing differently, like I said before, I touch up my photos quite a bit more than most others here (unrealistically blue skies for example (shameless self-promotion - see my US thread linked in my sig for what I'm talking about)).

[Ramsayfarian]

Here's 10 great tips for LR users.

http://digitalphotobuzz.com/10-quick-lightroom-tips

[Bigtime]

That's a very helpful article, thanks for the link Ramsay.