Why Does Lightroom Web Module Export Images At 240 ppi?

Firstly, please forgive my ignorance on this subject. I am in the process of getting together a website of my images and have been experimenting with preparing the images and thumbnails through Lightroom's web module. I've noticed that when opening the finished images in Elements, that they have all been converted at 240ppi. Surely, images for websites should be at 72ppi (or possibly 96ppi)? Or am I dimmer than even I thought?

should I simply ignore the resolution box?
Yes indeed. You set the size unit box in the export dialog simply to pixels and then size the right number of pixels for your web use. Typical is for example 800 pixels on the long end. The resolution box is not relevant for web use. It is really only used as a hint to a final printing size.
So I imagine the 240ppi conversion must be the Lightroom default value. Do you think?
Very likely so. I believe Lightroom, just like Photoshop, assumes 240 for files that do not start out having the tag so that is probably what happened if this started as a scan. Many scanners do not write this tag at all, but most DSLRs write the tag into their files and it is usually 240 for older generation cameras and 300 for later ones. I don't know why they do that as it is again not relevant as people print at any size they want.

Similar Messages

WEB module export image size

Team, I am
exporting just two images from the Web Mo
dule...using the basis HTML
gallery template.
The original image size is 4972K (4.9Mb)
After I select export in the web module, the resulting image is around
200K in the content\images\large directory.
I have the "Large Images" Quality slider at 100
Is is the case...that no matter what...the image will be manipulated or reduced in size by the web module engine?
I would like the original image to be exported out to the content\images\large directory.
Is this possible?
I was just on phone with support...close to two hours...disconnected twice...but the phone support folks were not aware of what I am doing.
I am using LR 3.3 in Windows...if that matters.
Thank You,
-Rich O
[email protected]

Rich,
RichO2010 wrote:
Beat, I have not made any adjustments. Not sure where "Image Pages" are. But, under the Web module, I have tried several "Large Images" quality settings under the "Output Settings"
You find this setting under the Appearance section:
I am getting the sense that no matter what...the LR Webgallery engine wants to "optimize" the images for web output.
I just want the people that visit the site, the ability to download the original image...unaltered.
I have not found a way to go beyond 2071 pixels for image width in Web Gallery.
From what i am reading so far, I think I should just let the galley engine do its work. Then come back and upload the original images under the content\images\large (or whatever the output destination might be).
That might be a way to achieve what you want. There might be side-effects regarding borders, watermarks etc.
Beat

Why does CS6 no longer export images out at their boundary/artboard size? Am I missing something?

I recently upgraded to Illustrator CS6, and suddenly clients have been remarking that the file sizes are wrong or there's "a ton of white space around the logo." I checked it out, and sure enough, it appears that whenever I export a file, it does not crop it to the image boundary like it used to, even if I had manually adjusted the artboard to fit closely around it. After a bit of trial and error, I discovered that I have to click "Use Artboards" on the Export dialog each time. The super annoying part is that it doesn't STAY checked, AND it adds a number to the end of the file name. So I often forget to check it (not used to the extra step in workflow), and if I make a modification to the file, I can't just export over the previous version. It requires me to export it, go find it in finder, and manually delete the extra number off the file name. Ugh! The extra steps are adding way too much time when I'm saving out many files. I'm about ready to go back to my previous version just from this alone.
Help! Am I totally missing something? Is there an easier way to do this? It seems like the addition of this feature would only cause extra problems...

I did a quick test of this, and my CS6 Ai does indeed export to the exact size of the artboard, even if there are elements outside this boundary. Imo, this is an improvement over earlier versions: if you had some art hanging over the artboard edge in CS5, the export size would be larger than the artboard, to include even hidden paths. But CS6 is an improvement in this regard. Yes, it would be nice if your choice of "use artboard" was remembered or a choice in the prefs, but this is a small inconvenience, imo. Regarding the addition of -01, etc. to each successive export, why not just send the latest export to your client? You can delete the earlier versions later.
Another plus: if you run in 64-bit, CS5 is slow on opening each file, which is thankfully not so with CS6.
DS

Image Info setting in Lightroom Web Module

I watched the Turning Gate Podcast on how to customize the text used for photo titles, captions and other items in Lightrooms web module.
In the Podcast pictures I noticed that in the web module Image Info pane section there are four individual settings available: Title, Caption, Annotations and a fourth one which I could not read.
In my version of Lightroom (Version 1.3) I have only Caption and Title available (displayed). How do I get the others displayed?
Franz

Brent,
On the left hand side double click on hard drive under "Publish Services" then do the following
In the Publish Services panel on the left side of the Library module, click the Adobe Revel connection Set Up button.
In the Lightroom Publishing Manager dialog box, look under Account and click Authorize.
Follow the prompts to allow Adobe Revel to communicate with Lightroom.
I played around with it to figure out different features of publishing Lightroom to Revel.
Once you have it set up then can create a new collection/abum by control clicking on the Adobe Revel. Then you can add image from your hard drive by dragging and dropping them into an album.
Then select "Publish" when you are done. Log in to your Revel account and check to make sure the images show up.
You can add watermarks to the images if you like.
Let me know if you have any other questions
Thanks
Scott

Question regarding using Lightroom Web Module and Zenfolio

I use LR3 and like the galleries I can make in the Web Module. If I use Zenfolio as a web hosting service, can I upload or export my photos from LR to Zenfolio and use the galleries I create in the Lightroom Web Module,,,or do I need to use the existing gallery templates in Zenfolio? If that is the case, other than using Lightroom to upload photos, is it's Web Gallery Module superflous?
Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

Matthew,
If you are asking if you need to use LR's Web Module to export images to Zenfolio, then no you would not use the LR Web Module but rather use a plug-in to export directly to Zenfolio. Or you can just export to your local HDD and use Zenfolio's upload module to grab the files from your local drive.
Jeffery Friedl has a nice LR plug-in for SmugMug so I am sure his Zenfolio plug-in will work nicely as well:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/zenfolio
It's free, sort of, after the trial period, like 45-days as I recall, there is a limit on the number of files which can be uploaded. When the trial expires if ya like it you just donate any amount and get to upload any number of files as Zenfolio allows in a session.
Does that help answer your question?

Lightroom web module

Re "Lightroom Web Module"
In the "site info" panel, I type the word "exit"
In the "web or mail link" section, I copy and paste the web page address of the page on my site
I wish it to be directed to.
I preview this with the Lightroom "Preview in Browser" button.
All works perfectly well including the exit link.
I then export it into my website "local file".
Create a link from text on my web page to the lightroom created gallery (I'm using Dreamweaver)
Then save changes in Dreamweaver and click preview in browser.
The Gallery works fine with the exception of the exit link.
I have the same problem in the Web HTML Gallery
I have also downloaded Lightroom 3.6 from Adobe labs and had the same result.
Any Suggestions
Many thanks...David

Hi Pete. Thanks for your reply.
Tried replacing exit with home without any results
Doubbled checked the link address was correct in lightroom...it was.
Just tried something I had not tried before. Up untill now, I was using only the "preview in browser" in
Dreamweaver.
When I uploaded the gallery to the remote server and went to see if it worked on my site it did !!!!
Not sure why it won't work in the "preview in browser" in dreamweaver but.....a question for bigger brains than mine..
Many Thanks for your help
Dave

Why does Lightroom not see my teathered camera in Windows 8?

When I teather my Nikon D300 in Lightroom 4, It seem as the Windows 8 operating systems takes over the function and Lightroom does not automatically open captured image. Instead, Windows' picture window appears. I have not been able to figure out how to override the windows function so that Lightroom opens the captured image. Need Help!!!

Where is that in the menu...couldn't locate it?
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphonessprengel <[email protected]> wrote:Re: Why does Lightroom not see my teathered camera in Windows 8?
created by ssprengel in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
Also make sure you have your camera set to Point-to-Point not Mass-Storage mode:
Menu/Wrench/USB/'M/P'
Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/5226836#5226836
Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5226836#5226836
To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/5226836#5226836. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom by email or at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

Why does lightroom not display photos ?

Hello,
all of a sudden lightroom tells me "no photo selected " when I try to open a folder.All the folders are visible but the photos cannot be displayed.I am using lightroom 4.1
The last editing was done less then 12 hours ago without any problems.
Your help would be much appreciated.
Thank you very much,
1journey

Thank you so much for your reply.I solved the problem after fretting over it for some time. A filter was not turned off and once I turned it off all was well. Live and learn.
Thank you kindly ,
nihonbashi
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 08:54:35 -0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: why does lightroom not display photos ?
    Re: why does lightroom not display photos ?
    created by F. McLion in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
Does it show an image count on the folders in the folder panel?
What does show if you select a folder in library?
     Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/5830261#5830261
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5830261#5830261
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/5830261#5830261. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
           Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/thread/416458?tstart=0.

Why does my web page, created on iWeb, look correct on Safari but has thick black lines all over it in Firefox?

Why does my web page, created on iWeb, look correct on Safari but has thick black lines all over it in Firefox?

What's the URL of your site so we can examine it first hand? I assume those black lines are around photos or objects that have had a frame or drop shadow added to it, right? If so that's a known issue.
There's a workaround for that in this tutorial: #7 - Converting Photos w/Frames, Drop Shadows and/or Reflections into a Single Image File. That should get rid of those black lines/boxes.
OT

Why does lightroom 2.7 keep making me import a folder?

Every time I sync my Nikon Transfer folder to import my new pictures that I just loaded from my camera, a folder that I have already imported is included in the import. This folder and its contents are already in there. And lightroom agrees by telling me that it didn't import that folder because it already exsists. Why does lightroom try to import that folder in the first place?

Beat,
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought the folders viewed in Explorer and in Lightroom were one and the same. I think I see what you are getting at though. Perhaps if you were to change the name via Lightroom, the metadata gets changed in a way that causes Lightroom to think it needs to re-import. I don't change the names from the auto-generated sub folder that Nikon Transfer creates - which is the date and time using all numerals.
I think I am just going to copy this sub folder to somewhere else, delete the original, re-import it and see what happens. I will might lose all my raw edits in the process, but I have already delivered the finished jpegs to my client.

Why does my web page reduce so small I can't read it?

Why does my web page reduce so small I can't read it?

The type is small on the website but that's because of all the stuff that they are cramming onto the page. A couple of other users made this same comment about eBay a while ago, as I recall.
There is no setting in Safari in which you can enlarge the size of the text.

Why does Lightroom install to 2.x folder instead of simply 2?

Why does Lightroom install to a different 2.x folder each time [such as 2.5, 2.6, 2.7]? Why not just install to the same Lightroom 2 folder?

M Behrens wrote:
I don't think you can run 2 .x versions side by side. the setup will uninstall the old version before installing the new 2.x verion. You can run the beta 3s side by side with a 2.x but Adobe allows for this.
You're right, this was a mistake on my side. I was misslead by the fact that my recent LR 2.7 upgrade did not remove the 2.6 folders entirely, but this was because I had an additional customized file in one of the subfolders.
Sorry for my confusion.
Beat

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

Web module exports all the different preview sizes

Trying out the web module - I select a flash template with extra large previews. When I export to Dreamweaver, not only are the Extra large previews exported but also large, medium etc. This means that if I upload to my server I will use far more space than necessary. Can I prevent this? Or can I simply delete all but the extra large pictures?

When exporting a Flash gallery it does export three sizes. Those three sizes are "relative" to the "preview size" setting, which you could kind of think of as setting the size for the "largest" of the three. When the gallery is loaded into a browser, the gallery automatically detects the size of the window, looks at the rendition sizes available, and then downloads the largest rendition size that will fit into the window. It then does some pretty sophisticated pre-fetching of the other images of that size based on user behavior (linear vs non-linear browsing of the gallery). The gallery does not download the other renditions at all - unless the end user changes the size of their browser window such that a different rendition size should be used. The gallery does not real-time scale the images inside Flash - except in the case where the browser window is made too small for even the smallest rendition, in which case it will scale down the image in real time (this is why your "trick" works). In Beta 4, the gallery threw scroll bars on the images themselves if the window was too small. I think the 1.0 approach is much better.
Granted this takes up extra room on the web server, (pretty cheap these days though) but if there were only one rendition, it really should be a size that will fit on 800x600 monitors - which is still well over 10% of web users, which would mean it would need to be pretty dang small given OS chrome, browser chrome, headers, etc - and then if you had thumnails across the bottom... Is all this overkill? When I look at galleries like the one at http://www.computer-darkroom.com/antarctica_2007/index.html in a maximized window on my hi-res monitor, I grow to really love the multiple rendition approach.

Web module: exporting keywords to a template not possible?

I want to use the web module to generate my photoblog, however I need to be able to export the keywords or collections used to tag each image. The dialog box for changing the image caption allows you to export all sorts of EXIF and IPTC metadata but not the lightroom keywords.
I've already made a template for my website but the generated xml file produced by lightroom for the transformer XSLT script to process seems to have no information about the image keywords in it so I'm stuck.
I know the keywords are embedded into the actual jpegs that are exported but extracting them would be more effort than its worth, I dont want to have to run more software after exporting from the web module just to get the keywords.
Any ideas?

Looking at the XMP for a recent file, the keywords are stored as follows
     castle
     cloghan castle
     couple
     matrimony
     september
     wedding
So you'd need to figure out how to extract them from there.

Why Does Lightroom Web Module Export Images At 240 ppi?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for