Options
LR exporting
Elaine
Registered Users Posts: 3,532 Major grins
I'm a bit confused as to what is the best way to export from LR in order to upload to Smug. With PS, I just flatten and convert to highest quality JPEG and then upload that via Bridge. Now, my plan is to download to LR, do my raw edits there, do any necessary PS work and end up in LR again.
If I have a PSD, so I need to go back into PS and flatten and save a JPEG version and upload via Bridge as usual?
If I've only worked in LR, do I make an export preset that converts to JPEG and save it into an Upload folder, and then tell Smug to pull from that?
What's the best way to do this?
If I have a PSD, so I need to go back into PS and flatten and save a JPEG version and upload via Bridge as usual?
If I've only worked in LR, do I make an export preset that converts to JPEG and save it into an Upload folder, and then tell Smug to pull from that?
What's the best way to do this?
0
Comments
You can export to sRGB* using an export preset you build OR you can export via the print module to a JPEG. In the export preset, you can select the size and file type (TIFF, JPEG), apply output sharpening (its designed for ink jet but should work reasonably well here).
*sRGB is a (lame) requirement for many labs.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
So, should I not be working in sRGB to begin with?? I don't want to deal with the frustration of having my LR images look different in PS and/or on Smug.
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
http://www.starexplorer.com/
__________________
Stone Creek Photography
Equine and Historical Landscape Photographer.
New Mexico.
Become a fan of Stone Creek Photography
Andi like NITRODESK .........here is a LINK to a dgrin discussion thread on the newest reless of NitroDesk............there should be a link for download there.
Most advice I have seen, says to work in Adobe RGB and then change the profile to sRGB for things uploaded to web.......at one time I had my cams set for srgb and then took them back to Adobe RGB and I am glas I did as the invitation to submit photos for a book being published about Wichita wanted all file in RGB....adobe, pro, prophoto...but not sRGB......so everthing now is set to work in a standard form of RGB...............
You don't have to, you do need to export sRGB for this lab based on their sRGB, semi color management workflow.
Everything you do in LR is conducted in ProPhoto RGB (linear gamma). Even if you shoot JPEG in sRGB, its converted to ProPhoto RGB, 16-bit for processing. Makes you wonder why you'd even consider shooting in sRGB JPEG in the first place but I digress.
IF you're moving out of LR alone, just export to sRGB. If you have to go to Photoshop, I'd go out with a much larger color space (ProPhoto RGB 16-bit), then convert a copy to sRGB for the lab. Otherwise you hose a huge amount of data just to be stuck in a tiny and mostly useless color space (sRGB). Why paint your data into a corner?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
So much to think about and cram into this head o' mine!
BTW, I do shoot raw. (Edit: I just realized that my above question probably made it sound like I shoot JPEG. Rather, it was just me being confused.)
Is it possible that some actions in CS3 don't like 16-bit? So, if I exported out to CS3 with a ProPhoto 16-bit in order to do some layer work, it might need to be changed to 8-bit anyway? If so, should I set my export setting as 8-bit or wait 'till I get to CS3 and change it?
In CS3, I would flatten my images and save a high quality JPEG to upload to Smug. If I cropped, I would only set my width and height and leave the resolution box empty (so it would just be the highest it could be, I think?). When I look in Bridge, now, and see an image I started with in LR and exported to CS3 (as a PSD in sRGB, 16-bit), it says 3541x2361 @ 590 ppi. (There is also an sRGB color profile # shown.) After I played with it there and saved it as a PSD, I went back to LR and played with that new version some more (which probably wasn't good) by applying a couple presets. Looking in Bridge again, that image now has Edit-Edit.psd at the end of the filename and the resolution is 3541x2361 @ 240 ppi. I'm not really sure what to ask, but I'd just like to have a better understanding of what actually took place with that image.
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
YES.. You can not save an imported raw file into a Jpg at 16 Bit, which I find HIGHLY annoying. Have to convert the file to an 8 bit then save as a Jpg. UGH.
Exporting In Lightroom is SUPER easy. Here is how mine is set up..
Export Location:
Export to: Same Folder as Original folder
Put in subfolder checked.. default title. Untitled Export
File Naming:
Format: JPG
Quality 100
Color Space sRGB
Skip down to Post Processing: Star Explorer
Export done.
In Star Explorer I assign my images to the galleries and upload, go to bed. In the AM Upload done, Smug Mug looking gorgeous and ready to be sold.
__________________
Stone Creek Photography
Equine and Historical Landscape Photographer.
New Mexico.
Become a fan of Stone Creek Photography
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about the 16-bit stuff. At this point, I just want something that works smoothly, so if that means working in 8-bit, I guess I don't know any better (as that's what I've been doing before LR anyway)!
Thanks for sharing your export info. Do you leave the resolution at the default 240 ppi? It bugs me to have to choose a setting.
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Some, few commends, do not operate on 16-bit data. There are none I can think of that are necessary for global and local color and tone corrections that the high bit data would be useful in keeping.
What steps are in the action?
JPEG doesn't support 16-bit data, that's just how the format works. Do all work in 16-bit, last step, save a copy in 8-bit JPEG/sRGB leaving your master in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB for other more demanding output needs. JPEG is visually lossless but does discard a great deal of data, especially compared to the high bit original you've been working on. JPEG is really only a useful format for transferring files faster, keeping file size down at the expense of a data loss. And every time you resave the JPEG, you lose more data. I rarely use JPEG for these reasons. TIFF is my preferred format, it has all the capabilities of PSD and is an open format, and it does support lossless compression but you'll never get the file size down like you would with JPEG.
The requirement for JPEGs from labs is similar to their demand for sRGB. Make life easier on them, not necessarily provide the best options for you. FWIW, you can print locally from Photoshop using a 16-bit document, it will convert on the fly to 8-bit for your printer. Note too, more modern output devices (Epson on Mac OS X) support the full 16-bit data path to the print driver.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Yes I do leave the Resolution at 240ppi(dpi) leave all other sections alone except the ones I listed.
__________________
Stone Creek Photography
Equine and Historical Landscape Photographer.
New Mexico.
Become a fan of Stone Creek Photography
Since I want all my files to be at what used to be refered to as 8x10 resolution.....I changed the 240 to 300.....doesn't sound like much but the publisher that I just sent my photos to for review and possible publication was nicely adamant about nothing less than 300......so this has saved me a lot of time to not have to go back and re-adjust the dpi......also if I get a call for a 30 x 40" print....I take the 300 dpi file into Genuine Fractals and up rez that to 30 x 40" at 300dpi......yup it tends to get huge.....but I have a print that need no viewing distance to look superb.
I am sure I will have to change that again when I move from 6 & 8mp cameras to newer 12 or higher mp cameras.....but that is so little to worry about.
Figure out what size print you wish (16x20). Let the number of pixels per inch fall where they might as long as they fit within a low end of 180ppi and a high end of 480ppi. The driver will do the rest. There is no need to set the output resolution to a divisible of some setting (many say 360). Lower than 180, you need to create more pixels (resample up). Higher than 480ppi, you can actually start to lose image quality.
In LR.'s Print module, you have a resolution setting which and check box that defaults to 240. You can leave it as such assuming again that the output is sized as you so desire and falls within the range above. In Rulers and Guides here, you can set a check box called "Dimension" which will place a non printable tag at the top of the image, showing you the size of the output, based on the template and based on this 240 setting. Some images, those of high frequency*, may result in better output if you uncheck this box and up the resolution to 300+. Its pretty image specific so most users can keep the check box set to 240.
*High frequency versus low. Look at your image and place a horizontal line going across the image. If you see many light and dark areas (a shot of a tree), you've got a high frequency image. Do the same with say a portrait. That would be a low frequency image.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/