Lightroom Export/Resize

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

Thanks

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.

Merlin_AZ wrote in post #18029850
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.

Merlin_AZ wrote in post #18029850
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

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....

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

birderman wrote in post #18030897
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
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

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.

matt_shaban wrote in post #18031402
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.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18031660
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
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