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 05 Jun 2016 (Sunday) 10:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lightroom Export/Resize

 
matt_shaban
Member
Avatar
82 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Triangle, NC
Post edited over 3 years ago by matt_shaban.
     
Jun 05, 2016 10:02 |  #1

Hello all,

I am having an issue with image quality when exporting AND resizing from Lightroom. I am using the most up to date version of Lightroom CC.

I have been trying to read similar issues people are having from various forums...most people suggest turning the "output sharpening" to high in the export menu. I have been doing this and it still looks like the image is significantly more blurry. When I export as JPEG and do not select "resize to fit", then image looks spot on to what I was seeing in the develop tab. If I do resize the image, it becomes blurry. I am viewing these side by side via Apple preview...it seems like the resized image is being viewed at 200% (when viewing at "actual size") instead of 100% because when I zoom out in preview the image seems sharper.

Is there something I am missing or is this just how an image is going to look after being downsized that much?

https://www.flickr.com …/mattshaban/sha​res/4PwAB6 (external link)

Thanks




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Merlin_AZ
Senior Member
Avatar
869 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Mar 2010
     
Jun 05, 2016 10:55 |  #2

I've run into this before. It might help.
Under Image Resizing, even if the box is unchecked, it still will change the resolution of the file to whatever is listed in the Resolution box.
Put 240 or 300 in there before exporting.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
matt_shaban
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
82 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Triangle, NC
Post edited over 3 years ago by matt_shaban.
     
Jun 05, 2016 12:24 |  #3

Merlin_AZ wrote in post #18029850 (external link)
I've run into this before. It might help.
Under Image Resizing, even if the box is unchecked, it still will change the resolution of the file to whatever is listed in the Resolution box.
Put 240 or 300 in there before exporting.

Hey Merlin,

In both cases, the resolution was set to 72. Full size image looks great. Re-sized image looks bad.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
birderman
Goldmember
1,039 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Mar 2011
Location: London, UK
     
Jun 06, 2016 10:45 |  #4

Merlin_AZ wrote in post #18029850 (external link)
I've run into this before. It might help.
Under Image Resizing, even if the box is unchecked, it still will change the resolution of the file to whatever is listed in the Resolution box.
Put 240 or 300 in there before exporting.


Hmm NOT Quite True - this box doesn't affect the overall quality of exported image as others have previously said time and time again in similar posts to this forum.

What limits the quality is if the Export dialogue is set to resize the image, the number of pixels this set to should match the out put media, for screen displays this is normally around 1024 >1280 pixels which if you divide by the screen dimensions you will get the true DPI value. What is possible is the preview app/program is downsampling the image and making it appear lower quality than it is. When exporting the Jpeg quality setting only needs to be around 80% nothing much is gained by selecting higher apart from a much larger file.

If you a planning on printing then it is normal to aim for a PPI of approx 300 therefore for a 10inch print your image needs to be around 3000pixels wide... if you printing a1000 wide pixel image to 10inches wide you will only have 100ppi which will produce quite soft poor quality print.

HTH


Birderman
London, UK
my photos on Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link) or my Facebook - KishWphotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
birderman
Goldmember
1,039 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Mar 2011
Location: London, UK
     
Jun 06, 2016 10:55 as a reply to  @ matt_shaban's post |  #5

For my exports (for Facebook or online sharing) I have Size to fit > Long Edge 960 Pixels > quality 80% and ignore the resolution setting. Maybe the dimensions you have sized to fit are too small so when viewing it needs to interpolate to fill the screen and thus creates a softer image....


Birderman
London, UK
my photos on Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link) or my Facebook - KishWphotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,996 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1612
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jun 06, 2016 11:37 |  #6

Although generally if no importance to the use of an image file, since most software completely ignores it, the PPI value can have an affect on the image that is exported from LR. LR uses the value in the PPI field as one of the factors it uses for applying export sharpening. Although not a huge effect it is probably best to ensure that the value used is consistent with the final use of the image. So for example when exporting for display on an average monitor I will set the PPI value to 100, as that is pretty close to the average monitors actual resolution (windows now usually assumes 96 PPI instead of the older 72 PPI that most people are accustomed to). For printing then I will usually use 300PPI, as that is what my usual print labs, and my home inkjet printer use. As well as setting an appropriate PPI value I always also make sure that I have the right settings for export sharpening set, either Print or Screen, and which ever level I think appropriate.

I think that the most likely issue that the OP is seeing is poor interpolation of the image when displayed at full screen size.

Alan


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
matt_shaban
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
82 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Triangle, NC
     
Jun 06, 2016 19:17 |  #7

birderman wrote in post #18030897 (external link)
For my exports (for Facebook or online sharing) I have Size to fit > Long Edge 960 Pixels > quality 80% and ignore the resolution setting. Maybe the dimensions you have sized to fit are too small so when viewing it needs to interpolate to fill the screen and thus creates a softer image....

BigAl007 wrote in post #18030933 (external link)
Although generally if no importance to the use of an image file, since most software completely ignores it, the PPI value can have an affect on the image that is exported from LR. LR uses the value in the PPI field as one of the factors it uses for applying export sharpening. Although not a huge effect it is probably best to ensure that the value used is consistent with the final use of the image. So for example when exporting for display on an average monitor I will set the PPI value to 100, as that is pretty close to the average monitors actual resolution (windows now usually assumes 96 PPI instead of the older 72 PPI that most people are accustomed to). For printing then I will usually use 300PPI, as that is what my usual print labs, and my home inkjet printer use. As well as setting an appropriate PPI value I always also make sure that I have the right settings for export sharpening set, either Print or Screen, and which ever level I think appropriate.

I think that the most likely issue that the OP is seeing is poor interpolation of the image when displayed at full screen size.

Alan

Thanks for the replies guys...Could you tell a difference between the two images I posted in the link in the original post? I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy...Also, I meant to add if I re-import the resized photo into Lightroom and view it at 1:1 it looks as crisp as the non-resized image. Could it be my monitor as well? I have the new iMac




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,292 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1565
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Jun 07, 2016 00:41 as a reply to  @ matt_shaban's post |  #8

I can certainly see a difference when I zoom in but that is not surprising because one is 5,000+ pixels on the long side while the other is only 1024. In other words, I can't see anything abnormal.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,996 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1612
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jun 07, 2016 08:13 |  #9

matt_shaban wrote in post #18031402 (external link)
Thanks for the replies guys...Could you tell a difference between the two images I posted in the link in the original post? I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy...Also, I meant to add if I re-import the resized photo into Lightroom and view it at 1:1 it looks as crisp as the non-resized image. Could it be my monitor as well? I have the new iMac

This is simply the viewing software doing a potentially poor job of interpolating the image, which is not surprising given that one of the images will be displayed at 100%/1:1 ratio on a 5K iMac while the other will be at 500%/5:1. 500%/5:1 means that the software has to guess four pixels for every one pixel in the image! Oh and that is four guessed pixels horizontally, and four pixels vertically. Once you start thinking about this two dimensionally you realise that for every pixel in the actual image the software is having to invent a total of 24! It seems to be as if you are not actually trying to view the images at 100%/1:1 resolution, but at Fill Screen, which for the image with roughly the same number of pixels horizontally as the screen more or less results in the same thing as 100%/1:1.

Alan

I have used Percentage/ratio in all my statements of reproduction ratio, since that way it becomes obvious what I am referring to regardless of the application being used to view the image, since different applications can use either method for representing on screen reproduction ratios.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
matt_shaban
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
82 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Triangle, NC
     
Jun 07, 2016 10:16 |  #10

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18031660 (external link)
I can certainly see a difference when I zoom in but that is not surprising because one is 5,000+ pixels on the long side while the other is only 1024. In other words, I can't see anything abnormal.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18031825 (external link)
This is simply the viewing software doing a potentially poor job of interpolating the image, which is not surprising given that one of the images will be displayed at 100%/1:1 ratio on a 5K iMac while the other will be at 500%/5:1. 500%/5:1 means that the software has to guess four pixels for every one pixel in the image! Oh and that is four guessed pixels horizontally, and four pixels vertically. Once you start thinking about this two dimensionally you realise that for every pixel in the actual image the software is having to invent a total of 24! It seems to be as if you are not actually trying to view the images at 100%/1:1 resolution, but at Fill Screen, which for the image with roughly the same number of pixels horizontally as the screen more or less results in the same thing as 100%/1:1.

Alan

I have used Percentage/ratio in all my statements of reproduction ratio, since that way it becomes obvious what I am referring to regardless of the application being used to view the image, since different applications can use either method for representing on screen reproduction ratios.

Thank you both for the reply! and thank you for the explanation, Alan




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

2,427 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lightroom Export/Resize
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 gammy13
2969 guests, 342 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.