Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 22 Jan 2016 (Friday) 15:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Exporting from lightroom to meet a requirement

 
wellsie82
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
65 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Jan 23, 2016 06:32 |  #16

tzalman wrote in post #17869381 (external link)
As I noted above, the amount of compression applied to the jpg and its resulting size have no affect on the uncompressed size; all you need to know is the total number of pixels (height x width). Multiply that by 3 for a rough estimate. 2.86 to be more accurate.

For instance: 4000 x 6000 pixels = 24MP x 3 = 72MB

sorry i think i missed that - that's great & very useful


www.jasonwells.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,979 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1604
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 23, 2016 06:35 |  #17

Yes look at EITHER my first posting directly above the one by Elie, OR the post by Elie, directly below mine, where we both explain exactly the same thing. Pixels times three, to give you uncompressed file size in bytes or Mega Pixels ×2.86 for file size in Mega Bytes. Either of those is always true and is all you need to know.

It can't be much easier really.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,463 posts
Likes: 191
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jan 23, 2016 06:35 |  #18

clearly its in everyones interests for me not to step up my sizes (the buyers/agency won't like the reduced IQ & i don't want to bolt additional things to do in other applications in my workflow)

If you need to resize a moderate amount to fall in the 17.5 - 25 MP window, LR will do it at least as well as any other application, maybe better than most.

* no restrictions on size (will give me the largest possible file)

No, leaving the Resize box in LR unchecked will give you the native size of your image (as it came from the camera) minus any cropped sections or changes caused by lens or perspective corrections or straightening. I.e., "the largest possible" image without additional resampling being done.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wellsie82
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
65 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Jan 24, 2016 02:29 |  #19

tzalman wrote in post #17869401 (external link)
If you need to resize a moderate amount to fall in the 17.5 - 25 MP window, LR will do it at least as well as any other application, maybe better than most.

No, leaving the Resize box in LR unchecked will give you the native size of your image (as it came from the camera) minus any cropped sections or changes caused by lens or perspective corrections or straightening. I.e., "the largest possible" image without additional resampling being done.

im not familiar with doing this in LR (never used it)

if i go to export, then image sizing, then resize to fit? is this the right place?

ive then got a number of options - which one(s) am i best using? most of the tutorials seem to focus on the dimensions & edges


www.jasonwells.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wellsie82
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
65 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Jan 24, 2016 04:27 |  #20

wellsie82 wrote in post #17870420 (external link)
im not familiar with doing this in LR (never used it)

if i go to export, then image sizing, then resize to fit? is this the right place?

ive then got a number of options - which one(s) am i best using? most of the tutorials seem to focus on the dimensions & edges

looks like ive sussed it

image sizing > tick resize to fit > width & height > w: 5500 > H: 5500 > pixels > 300ppi

the width & height tab was previously making me think that having the two fields the same would give me a square image but having dug around on some more blogs/tutorials this is the longest side only

clearly the more i crop, the less this will work, but as a guestimate, is 5500 pixels on the longest side ok? i mean, it seems to do the job in terms of the image size but would it impact IQ being that large a number? the default was 1000 in both fields


www.jasonwells.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,463 posts
Likes: 191
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jan 24, 2016 04:48 |  #21

wellsie82 wrote in post #17870420 (external link)
im not familiar with doing this in LR (never used it)

if i go to export, then image sizing, then resize to fit? is this the right place?

Yes.

ive then got a number of options - which one(s) am i best using? most of the tutorials seem to focus on the dimensions & edges

I don't think it makes a lot of difference, because (unlike PS) LR will never change the aspect ratio of the image. If you start with a 5D2 image that is 3744x5616 pixels (21 MP - great for the agency at that size) and you have to crop it to 3300x4950 (still 2:3), which is 16.3 MP and below the minimum, so you want to upsize it to 18 MP which is 3464x5196. You could write in those pixel dimensions or just one of them for long side or short side and since LR won't change the ratio the other side will come out right. But that is hard work; to find the appropriate dimensions for 18 MP I had to figure out the square root of 3 million. And if it hadn't been in the 2:3 ratio after the crop but rather some more complex ratio it would have been even harder. LR makes it easy with the Megapixels option - just type in 18.

clearly the more i crop, the less this will work, but as a guestimate, is 5500 pixels on the longest side ok?

The minimum is around 17.5 MP, so if you fall below that I would go for 18 MP or 5200 pixels long side. I think an increase of 25%, say 4200 to 5200 would have no discernible effect on quality.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,979 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1604
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jan 24, 2016 08:36 |  #22

Here is an example of how well LR can do at resizing. I have used these images as examples previously, but not in this specific context.

Here is an image that I wanted printing at 30"×20", and the pro lab service that I use requires you to resize the image to meet 300 PPI, which for that print size is 9000×6000 pixels or 54 MP. Here is the original full image resized to meet the POTN posting limits.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from BigAl007's gallery.


This is a 100% crop of the original sized image.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


In the process of making the image print ready I cropped the original image a bit so that it was 4082×2698 pixels. I then exported the image from LR, letting LR handle all of the resizing in one go. I shan't post the full 9000×6000 pixel image, but here are a couple of 100% crops from the enlarged image. This is a pixel enlargement factor of 2.2×.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from BigAl007's gallery.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from BigAl007's gallery.


I will admit for full disclosure that I actually exported the files used here specifically for use on POTN, and I used my usual POTN Output Sharpening settings of Screen/High with a PPI setting of 100 (the output resolution setting supposedly affects the level of output sharpening applied, so may be a relevant setting in this situation. The value used makes no other difference to the output).

I think most people will agree that the image seems to stand up well to this level of resampling on export. I can tell you that the print, done on Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl paper, looks absolutely stunning and holds up to nose distance scrutiny. Since the aircraft is done in a pearl finish paint using the same effect in the print paper is really rather magical in effect. Oh and yes it was shot handheld, with a shoulder stock support, at 600mm and 1/160s with the Sigma 150-600 C and a 50D, with the subject moving at over 100mph.

Alan

My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wellsie82
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
65 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Jan 24, 2016 10:23 |  #23

tzamlan & bigal2007 - this is great insight & your replies were very useful

seems ive learnt something in LR today which i never knew existed (not that id needed it beforehand)

many thanks everyone, appreciate all your input in helping me out here


www.jasonwells.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,984 views & 12 likes for this thread
Exporting from lightroom to meet a requirement
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Jakesbird
702 guests, 223 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.