Editing and image quality in Lightroom

Hello all,
I am a new Lightroom user (Lightroom 5) and I've watched several tutorial videos and I've had a lot of fun playing around with the program. I've noticed that Lightroom is said to be "non-destructive" when it comes to editing. Apparently, you can do all the editing you want to an image (i.e. adjusting exposure, cropping, etc.) and there is no loss of image quality as you edit. Is this correct?
I would hate to think that my tinkering around with the editing tools results in loss of image quality each time I change something. ("Hmm, I like that exposure. Now let me adjust shadows. No....that doesn't look right when I do that. I'll just change the exposure a bit more...."! I intend to put photos onto an image hosting site and present them, so I want the quality to be the best it can be!
I appreciate any help anyone can offer.
Cheers,
Tom

I am a new Lightroom user (Lightroom 5) and I've watched several tutorial videos and I've had a lot of fun playing around with the program. I've noticed that Lightroom is said to be "non-destructive" when it comes to editing. Apparently, you can do all the editing you want to an image (i.e. adjusting exposure, cropping, etc.) and there is no loss of image quality as you edit. Is this correct?
I know of no image editing software that causes loss of image quality when you make an edit. Editing steps simply cause a change to the image based on the edit you perform, not a loss of quality. This is true of Lightroom and every other image editor that I know of.
If you choose to save (or in Lightroom do an export) as a JPG, then there is a loss of image quality each time you perform a save as a JPG. If you need to have a JPG of your edited photo for some reason, then this loss of image quality is unavoidable, but in most cases you won't even notice. Thus, in Lightroom, creating a JPG from the edited photo is the LAST step in the process, thereby minimizing the image quality loss.

Similar Messages

NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

Jeff,
I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

Image Quality of Lightroom vs Nikon Image Processing Software

Is anyone out there of the opinion that the quality of images displayed in Lightroom is not as good as when using Nikon's software (for NEF jpeg files)? I am working with some photographers who think so. I love using lightroom and trying to determine if 1)if there is any legitimacy to there opinions, 2) if any others are experiencing the same thing, and 3) if true, how come?

It's not the monitor calibration that makes the difference, it's the way the RAW engine cooks the image. The calibration mentioned above is meant to mean using the Camera Calibration panel and to tweak the colors to match. I posted a thread a week or so ago, about how I managed to match (to my tastes) the look produced by CaptureNX within Lightroom. Hope this is useful in some way.
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc80a90/0

IPhoto is changing resolution and image quality

I am currently and for the first time using iPhoto 6 to produce a book - a feature within the application. I have edited my images in Photoshop, some have not needed to be so they have simply been saved as either high-res JPGS or TIFFS. On importing them into iPhoto selected images are downsizing and stating that they are not big enough to print - this I know is not true as they are adequatley large enough for printing to A0 minimum at 300 dpi. There are also a select few that are changing in image quality - the colours are looking either bleached out or over-exposed and they have lost their original quality. When opening the exact files in Photoshop they are correctly exposed, perfect colours, sizes etc. If I am to try and 'retouch' them within iPhoto I can resume some of their quality but it seems through the transition into importing inot the application they are being corrupted.
Can anyone assist me as its driving me mad!!!
Thanks

What is the color space of the photos in photoshop?
In iPhoto Preferences, Advanced, do you have it set to add ColorSync Profile?
BTW, the 72 ppi (pixels per inch) is irrelevant. iPhoto defaults to reporting 72 ppi because that is a typical screen resolution. What's important is the total pixel dimensions of the image, and whether that size gives you an adequate dpi (dots per inch) when printed at the designated print size. So, while the image looks great on-screen in photoshop, that doesn't mean that it will be adequate for printing in a book. But you are right - you shouldn't see a significant shift in color when importing into iPhoto.
Regards.

Printing and Image Quality

Hello,
I was wondering if there is a place that I could find out how to use the printing functionality of the Java API other than the tutorials here on sun. We've got some printable objects in our program, but when we try to take the screenshots and print them out, the quality is very shoddy. What I want to be able to do is to get almost exactly what the image on the screen is and be able to print it with as good of quality as is on the computer screen. Are there any good tutorials out there, (or example good or bits of advice) that might help me do this? Thank you very much, and happy new year!

While that is quite useful, the problem is that I need to resize the component I'm trying to fit, and in some cases edit the image before printing, so that the image gets somewhat distorted. Right now we've just been using getImageableX() and getImageableWidth() and those methods to draw the component onto the thing we are going to print. Is there a better way to deal with resizing?

Resaving pdfs and image quality

I have clients submit ads as pdfs but sometimes I need to recreate the pdf because the client forgot to include all printer marks, or I need to convert a spot to process, or whatever. The way I do it is to create a new InDesign CS3 file, place the pdf file into it, and export to pdf using my preset. My question is does importing a pdf file into ID and then exporting back into pdf affect image quality, even slightly assuming the compression settings are the same in the export to pdf' dialog box - mainly all compression set to none?
Thanks.
-Mark

New Bie:
Many of the adjustments you want to make can be done to the PDF within Acrobat if you have the Acrobat Professional version.
Such as: convert colors, add printers marks and change Page Box sizes.
You'll find these tools under the "Advanced" menu > "Print Production"
And also under the "Document" menu > Crop Pages > Change Page Size

IWeb and image quality of Photoshop jpegs

i am constructing a website consisting of my photography... with color shots i am noticing a dramatic 'flattening' of the vivid nature of my shots in iWeb as opposed to how they appear on photoshop... i believe i have followed the photoshop process properly... so there would be an image now at 72 ppi about 6 inches by four inches as a jpeg looking pretty vivid in photoshop on my screen. when i bring this over, via iPhoto, into iWeb image quality is lost... of note as well though is that this image does not look to hot in iPhoto as well... not sure then what forum this question belongs in... any quidance at all is appreciated.

hi Tomas... thanks for your response... i did drag a photo from my finder directly into iweb and within the iweb program it looked great but as soon as i published i lost saturation... odd... so i can avoid iphoto now, which is great, but something is happening in the process still... i have turned off the iweb image optimization and played with tiffs and jpegs within photoshop to try to get the final image to come out as intended... if you have any other suggestion please let me know... thanks again for your post... i will check out your link.

Screen protectors and image quality

I have a screen protector on my 3G and thinking about getting one for my iPhone 4. How you guys liking them so far? I am worried about it degrading the image quality of the new high res screen.
Tom

I've had every iPhone since it came out & I've never used a screen protector. I've never once ever had even the slightest tiny little scratch. That's not to say though that the screen on the ip4 will have the same luck bc I know it's not the same plus, in addition, I know the back is glass also & it's exposed due to the design of the bumper, which is my personal choice at this time.
I do wonder what the future will hold in reference to the other companies design for the new phone like Ncase, Griffith, Frogz, etc.??? They may come up with the clear plastic type snap on cases on different colors or variations of smoke colored to clear plastic. This way we can still see the phone, especially if you prefer the white if they ever start selling them, & it will be protected at the same time. Only problem is with those cases is u have to keep the touch pad exposed for use & you would still need a screen protector if this model does indeed scratch. Better than nothing though. I still wonder if it will scratch. I am HORRIBLE at putting on those screen protectors. No matter what I do I get bubbles etc. Used a credit card & started one end very slowly & it comes out looking ********. I KNOW that I NEVER had ANY scratched on my ip3Gs & the glass is the same as the iPad.

Am I losing image quality using Lightroom or Aperture

So, I have been going back and forth on this almost endlessly for over a year now.
I shoot RAW with a D3 and a D3X, for action and studio. But every now and then, I open up one of my RAW files in Nikon ViewNX, oe Capture NX. When I do this and look at definition and sharpness of the image as compared to the same image, viewed in either Aperture or Lightroom, Nikon View wins every time. I notice it most in loose hairs, or distant branches or leaves, The Nikon SW just seems to be sharper and more defined.
I always compare at 100% in each program.
It's driving me nuts! Both Aperture and Lightroom are infinately better to use than the Nikon SW, but, having invested so much in Cameras and lenses to get the highest fidelity, I am reluctant to switch.
I am using the latest version of each application.
PS. when I generate TIFs from the RAWs in the Nikon SW and load them into aperture or lightroom, they do have the same fidelity.
Anyone seen this? is it just a rendering issue on the screen? Will the output look the same? or is it the proprietary RAW files from Nikon that are holding back some critical info that imporved the image?
Would really appreciate your feedback/input
Nick

is it just a rendering issue on the screen?
Yes. In addition to what Sean notes, Lightroom uses a bicubic scaler in its zoomed out views. This means that you get far less moiré artefacts when zoomed out, but will make the image appear less sharp when zoomed out. Capture and ViewNX use a nearest neighbor scaling which appears sharper (but actually isn't) when zoomed out. You should look at 1:1 (100%) to actually compare the programs. Be aware that Nikon applies a LOT of sharpening by default and that the default sharpening in Lightroom is pretty mild. They also by default apply excessive (in my opinion) noise reduction. You can get far higher quality and more detail out of Lightroom than the default rendering in Capture/View but you'll have to work a little on it. The starting points for sharpening are very conservative.
Will the output look the same?
Try it. In my experience, if you work a little, Lightroom is quite a bit better. Once in a while I like the color rendition from Capture NX better (even when using the camera-matching profiles) but those are rare conditions.
is it the proprietary RAW files from Nikon that are holding back some critical info that imporved the image?
No that is a silly myth that Nikon likes to perpetuate. There is no secret info in the file that somehow allows you to get more detail or something. Just try it and you'll see. You can only judge the detail in the rendering at 1:1.

Flash Export and Image Quality

When I place Illustrator CSx eps files in my keynote presentations and then export to flash it really chews up the images. You would think vector images would fair the best but the lines are very jagged making the presentation look very ugly.
Does anyone have any tips on improving this? I've tried PNG,jpg, etc.. the images I'm using are line art (e.g. diagrams) but it doesn't seem to help using other file formats.
I don't understand why there is no compression control available for flash export....
Mark

edit your image in photoshop and experiment with various settings/size. there's no magic high quality small file size setting.
it's a trade-off. the higher the quality and the greater the image dimensions, the greater the file size. you have to decide where those are acceptable.

Organising, editing and renaming files in Lightroom 5

Hi !
I am a new Lightroom 5 user. I recently tried to organise my old photos (which stored in folders on a windows desktop) through Lightroom 5 in separate external HDDs.
What I did was to create a master photo folder in each HDD and then add the subfolders from my desktop. I want to now edit the photos in the Develop Module , rename and save the files in the same location in the subfolders on the external HDDs. But when I try doing that, Lightroom asks me to import. Did I not already import them ?
How can I edit,rename and save the photos ? Please help
Thanks !
Jeet1966

How can I edit,rename and save the photos ? Please help
In the Library Module, you select a photo that has already been imported, and click on "Develop", or press D. This allows you to edit your photos.
There is no need to rename or save (in fact, there is no "Save" command) as your edits are saved automatically and are always displayed in Lightroom whenever you launch Lightroom. In general, the only time you would want a copy of the edited photo is to use it for some non_lightroom purpose, like e-mail or web or commercial printer. In that case, you could use the command File->Export... which allows you to save the edited version of your photo in whatever folder you want, and rename the exported photo as well. As I said, you don't export everything as a regular step ... its unnecessary to export everything ... you only export when you need to use the photo outside of Lightroom.

DPI and image quality in programs like Windows Photo Viewer

I'll keep this as short as possible. About 6 years ago I bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-F28 digital camera (not DSLR). It claims 10 MP. After that my daughter bought a Canon Rebel (don;t know the model) which has 12 MP. I would compare her pics with mine by looking at them in Windows Photo Viewer. Hers always looked a lot fuzzier than mine. Especially true if you zoomed in. And I gave her a hard time, saying she had bought a knock off.
I just purcahsed a Rebel T5i with the usual kit 18/55 lens. I took a picture with both the new and the old camera. Guess what? Given the same subject with the same lighting, the Panasonic still produces much clearer pictures in Windows Photo Viewer than the Canon. The only difference I see is that the Canon states the DPI as 72 and the Panasonic as 180. OF course, the Canon image has a lot more pixels.
I know that DPI matters only when a picture is printed. But is it possible that the DPI property in the image file is telling Windows Photo Viewer how to present the image? I hope so. Otherwise I lucked out with my Panasonic and got the best camera in the world, or a Canon is not so great after all.
Do I need to apologize to my daughter? See attached images.
These images are opened in MS Paint and cropped to bring out the eye and hair detail.
Panasonic Image
Canon Image

You comparison method is seriously flawed. For 1 image to be at 72 DPI (a software supplied setting) & the other to be at 180 DPI it means that one image has been enlarged (180 divided by 72) 2.5 times more than the other to view it on screen. Zoom in on the good image until it's 2.5 times larger & see how it looks.
Next thing you need to know is that camera technique becomes more important as pixel count increases. an 18 Mpixel image will have an 80% increase in softness over the 10 Mpixel camera from identical camera shake. To make any accurate form of comparison you will need to eleminate the possibility of introducing camera shake into the test. You will also need very similar lighting & the subject must also be stationary for all test shots. (IE that eye (or the person it's attached to) may have moved during one shot but not the othern
"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

KVM and image quality

Anyone know whether a KVM switch will cause image degradation?
if so, where does the degradation come from?
ray

I've got a Belkin KVM that has 2 USB ports, 1 SVGA port, and both an audio in and audio output port.
It works great. But, there are very noticeable wavy lines on the screen if you look at a flat gray screen (like during startup).
You can see the lines if you look closely while at the desktop. But, it is much harder to see then. It is very noticeable during the startup process though.
I believe this is due to signal degradation from the longer cable.
It's not bad enough to annoy me. But, it does stress the eyes a bit (like a very low refresh rate does).
Overall, I don't notice it visually. But, I feel it in my eyes.

RotationZ and image quality

Why text or graphics inside a MovieClip or a Sprite deteriorate their video aspect when I act on their rotationZ properties?
How can I avoid this effect?
Thank you very much for anyone who kindly will answer me.
Best regards
Gio

hi
whenever you use 3D rotation (x, y or z), flash converts the rotating object to a bitmap (even if the original is made of vectors) so unfortunately you will always get a drop in quality

Difficult to edit an image in Photoshop CC from Lightroom 5

When I try to edit an image sent from Lightroom 5 to Photoshop CC I always get a runtime error (R6034). If I say ok about 20 times then Photoshop opens as well as the image being ok. What can I do?

Hi WWPIII,
Please check below threads as they may help :
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/06/lightroom-faq-frequently-asked-questions.h tml#editin
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1502418
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/edit-photoshop-command-missing-photoshop.html
-Manish
[moving thread to lightroom forum]

Editing and image quality in Lightroom

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for