A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A lightroom question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 30th 17, 05:12 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default A lightroom question

On 10/29/17 PDT 7:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 29, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

wrote

The original JPEG has lost all it is ever going to lose, there is no

"final
save" in LR.


You take a picture as JPG.


Yup! That sets your base original.

That's loss #1.


No loss, it is converted in-camera from the RAW data to an original JPEG
which is imported into LR.

You then edit it, say 5 times.


You can edit a 100 virtual copies, you are not editing the originally
imported JPEG.

Each time it’s saved in LR and there's no loss to the original.


It isn’t saved after each edit, each edit is written to XMP sidecar files.

That's good. LR is saving the bitmap image along with a history of changes you've made.


Nope. That is not how LR works with virtual copies. You are speculating on
how LR works without any actual knowledge, or experience. Don’t project
your ignorance into a thread where you are just guessing. I have been using
LR since the first beta.

Each time you work on it, you're really working on the bitmap and LR is saving that, along with the edit history data.


Nope.

What's different is that LR is hiding that complication and you don't need to keep track of various saved files.


You are guessing that is what is happening, but you are wrong.

LR is doing that for you. But once you decide to export it as an edited image in JPG that’s loss #2. You can't edit the image and then save a new image as

JPG without a second loss. You can do 5 lossless edits inside LR, but the
final save will be lossy.

Here you are close. The edited image is exported, and the export criterea for
resizing, file type, compression if the file type is lossy. If it is a JPEG
the loss will occur with the file at the export location. That file never
makes it back to LR, and other than posting it using whatever method to
recipients it will not be present on LR for any further editing, the degree
of loss is deliberate and planned.

I don't mean to complicate things. It's just that most people are not familiar with the differences
in file formats, so I think it's worth reiterating that JPG is lossy.


Why do you think that I might not be familiar with JPEGs? I certainly am well
aware that JPG is a lossy format.

Otherwise it's very easy to drop out data unnecessarily. The LR feature is nice, but
it's still a process that drops out data twice if you edit the photo.


Again, your knowledge and understanding of the function of LR is quite wrong.

So you take a JPG, put it into LR, edit as you like, and eventually save a version as JPG.


No, I edit a virtual copy of the JPEG, or RAW file as I like. I don’t save
a version as a JPEG within LR. However, if I choose to export an edited
version of that JPEG, or RAW file I can export it to the export location of
my choice, as the file type of my choice () all without reintroducing it into
LR.

I take a photo as JPG, save my first edit as BMP or TIF, then save all other versions the same way. I end
up with a folder containing numerous versions of the photo. You end up with a history in LR. If I edit it 5 times and maybe save 5 versions there’s no

loss. If necessary I might eventually convert one of those to JPG to send to
someone.

Well if that works for you, go ahead. You are probably never going to use any
Adobe applications, so I don’t see how you have done anything to solve
Peter’s original LR issue, or if you even understood it.

We both then end up with 2 lossy steps: The original JPG photo and the final JPG save of an edited image.
The only difference is that LR is managing the file storage for you so you don't need to save TIFs or
maintain systematic file storage.


You really don’t understand anything about LR.


That's basically what LR is doing -- saving some kind of backup bitmap

image.

Nope, an XMP sidecar file is not some kind of backup bitmap image. It is a
set of instructions detailing the edits and adjustments.

http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp.html
http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/tag/xmp-sidecar-files


We discussed this once before. It's all bitmaps. Any raster image is essentially a bitmap. A JPG
is a compressed bitmap with some data dropped out. A TIF is usually just a compressed bitmap.
A GIF is a bitmap. A PNG is a bitmap. Those are all just different ways to store the image data.
Proprietary formats, like Paint Shop Pro's PSP or the PS PSD, store the image plus editing
history, unmerged layers, etc. But the image is still going to be a bitmap -- a grid of pixel color
values. That's what goes to the printer or the computer screen. That's what you're applying filters,
sharpening, etc to. Those are all just mathematical formulae applied to bitmaps. Increase the pixel
values and you've lightened. Increase the difference between contiguous pixels and you've sharpened.
Of course it gets very sophisticated when it can do things like remove a chain link fence from the image,
but it's still essentially the same thing.


You are obviously trapped in bitmap theory.

Listen to The Duck. He knows whereof he speaks. Me, I worked only on V2
and 3 of LR.....

  #22  
Old October 30th 17, 05:50 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default A lightroom question

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:06:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Oct 29, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

wrote

The original JPEG has lost all it is ever going to lose, there is no

"final
save" in LR.


You take a picture as JPG.


Yup! That sets your base original.

That's loss #1.


No loss, it is converted in-camera from the RAW data to an original JPEG
which is imported into LR.

You then edit it, say 5 times.


You can edit a 100 virtual copies, you are not editing the originally
imported JPEG.

Each time it’s saved in LR and there's no loss to the original.


It isn’t saved after each edit, each edit is written to XMP sidecar files.

That's good. LR is saving the bitmap image along with a history of changes you've made.


This is the area where Mayayana's understanding goes off the rails.

When you load in amge into LR the first thing LR does is create a
screen display which (according to the preference you have selected)
is a more compact and less precise version of the image in the file.
It might be less precise but it's usually more than good enough to
enable you see what the effects of your edits may be.

Once you start editing each setting is saved in the XMP file. It's not
the effect of each edit that is saved: it's the instructions and
settings for each edit that is saved. The original file is not
affected by any of this: only the simplified version you see in the
screen. At the end of the edit session the XMP file has accumulated a
long list of edit data.

When you leave LR the original image file remains untouched. If you
come back again later the list of edits is reloaded and works on the
simplified version of the image file to show you on the screen where
you got to last time.

The XMP file only gets to work on the original image file only when
you go to export it in some way. Either by Saving the file, or Save As
or printing. The the XMP gets to work on the original image file (in
full precision) and creates whatever is required for export.

You can if you are so inclined edit a JPG and eventually save it on
top of itself but it is better to (for instance) as I do save JPGs in
a subfolder so that there is no confusion.

This way you can go on editing and saving JPGs until you are blue in
the face without accumulating corruptions of the original JPG.


Nope. That is not how LR works with virtual copies. You are speculating on
how LR works without any actual knowledge, or experience. Don’t project
your ignorance into a thread where you are just guessing. I have been using
LR since the first beta.

Each time you work on it, you're really working on the bitmap and LR is saving that, along with the edit history data.


Nope.

What's different is that LR is hiding that complication and you don't need to keep track of various saved files.


You are guessing that is what is happening, but you are wrong.

LR is doing that for you. But once you decide to export it as an edited image in JPG that’s loss #2. You can't edit the image and then save a new image as

JPG without a second loss. You can do 5 lossless edits inside LR, but the
final save will be lossy.

Here you are close. The edited image is exported, and the export criterea for
resizing, file type, compression if the file type is lossy. If it is a JPEG
the loss will occur with the file at the export location. That file never
makes it back to LR, and other than posting it using whatever method to
recipients it will not be present on LR for any further editing, the degree
of loss is deliberate and planned.

I don't mean to complicate things. It's just that most people are not familiar with the differences
in file formats, so I think it's worth reiterating that JPG is lossy.


Why do you think that I might not be familiar with JPEGs? I certainly am well
aware that JPG is a lossy format.

Otherwise it's very easy to drop out data unnecessarily. The LR feature is nice, but
it's still a process that drops out data twice if you edit the photo.


Again, your knowledge and understanding of the function of LR is quite wrong.

So you take a JPG, put it into LR, edit as you like, and eventually save a version as JPG.


No, I edit a virtual copy of the JPEG, or RAW file as I like. I don’t save
a version as a JPEG within LR. However, if I choose to export an edited
version of that JPEG, or RAW file I can export it to the export location of
my choice, as the file type of my choice () all without reintroducing it into
LR.

I take a photo as JPG, save my first edit as BMP or TIF, then save all other versions the same way. I end
up with a folder containing numerous versions of the photo. You end up with a history in LR. If I edit it 5 times and maybe save 5 versions there’s no

loss. If necessary I might eventually convert one of those to JPG to send to
someone.

Well if that works for you, go ahead. You are probably never going to use any
Adobe applications, so I don’t see how you have done anything to solve
Peter’s original LR issue, or if you even understood it.

We both then end up with 2 lossy steps: The original JPG photo and the final JPG save of an edited image.
The only difference is that LR is managing the file storage for you so you don't need to save TIFs or
maintain systematic file storage.


You really don’t understand anything about LR.


That's basically what LR is doing -- saving some kind of backup bitmap

image.

Nope, an XMP sidecar file is not some kind of backup bitmap image. It is a
set of instructions detailing the edits and adjustments.

http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp.html
http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/tag/xmp-sidecar-files


We discussed this once before. It's all bitmaps. Any raster image is essentially a bitmap. A JPG
is a compressed bitmap with some data dropped out. A TIF is usually just a compressed bitmap.
A GIF is a bitmap. A PNG is a bitmap. Those are all just different ways to store the image data.
Proprietary formats, like Paint Shop Pro's PSP or the PS PSD, store the image plus editing
history, unmerged layers, etc. But the image is still going to be a bitmap -- a grid of pixel color
values. That's what goes to the printer or the computer screen. That's what you're applying filters,
sharpening, etc to. Those are all just mathematical formulae applied to bitmaps. Increase the pixel
values and you've lightened. Increase the difference between contiguous pixels and you've sharpened.
Of course it gets very sophisticated when it can do things like remove a chain link fence from the image,
but it's still essentially the same thing.


You are obviously trapped in bitmap theory.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #23  
Old October 30th 17, 06:06 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default A lightroom question

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The original JPEG has lost all it is ever going to lose, there is no
"final
save" in LR.

You take a picture as JPG.


Yup! That sets your base original.

That's loss #1.


No loss, it is converted in-camera from the RAW data to an original JPEG
which is imported into LR.

You then edit it, say 5 times.


You can edit a 100 virtual copies, you are not editing the originally
imported JPEG.

Each time it¹s saved in LR and there's no loss to the original.


It isn¹t saved after each edit, each edit is written to XMP sidecar files.

That's good. LR is saving the bitmap image along with a history of changes
you've made.


This is the area where Mayayana's understanding goes off the rails.


as with pretty much everything.

When you load in amge into LR the first thing LR does is create a
screen display which (according to the preference you have selected)
is a more compact and less precise version of the image in the file.


nope.

the first thing lightroom does is import the photo into its database.

It might be less precise but it's usually more than good enough to
enable you see what the effects of your edits may be.


that part is true.

Once you start editing each setting is saved in the XMP file. It's not
the effect of each edit that is saved: it's the instructions and
settings for each edit that is saved. The original file is not
affected by any of this: only the simplified version you see in the
screen. At the end of the edit session the XMP file has accumulated a
long list of edit data.


yep.

When you leave LR the original image file remains untouched. If you
come back again later the list of edits is reloaded and works on the
simplified version of the image file to show you on the screen where
you got to last time.


sometimes its the preview and sometimes its not.

The XMP file only gets to work on the original image file only when
you go to export it in some way. Either by Saving the file, or Save As
or printing. The the XMP gets to work on the original image file (in
full precision) and creates whatever is required for export.


or for some adjustments and/or if it's zoomed in.

You can if you are so inclined edit a JPG and eventually save it on
top of itself but it is better to (for instance) as I do save JPGs in
a subfolder so that there is no confusion.


jpeg and raw workflow is the same.

This way you can go on editing and saving JPGs until you are blue in
the face without accumulating corruptions of the original JPG.


there can't be because it doesn't modify the original.
  #24  
Old October 30th 17, 01:39 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default A lightroom question

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| This way you can go on editing and saving JPGs until you are blue in
| the face without accumulating corruptions of the original JPG.
|

I understood that and went out of my way to clarify
to SD that I agreed with his description. All I ever
said was that every save to a new JPG file, out of LR,
will involve lossiness and that that should be recognized.

LR provides a way for you to not have to think about
that. I'm only warning not to get lulled by the convenience.
LR is essentially providing an organizing service so that
you don't have to deal with the file system so much.
Nothing wrong with that.

The difference is that I'm talking in terms of the
data. Some people seem to have very strong feelings
about the word "bitmap". But that's what the images
are. It helps to understand the format.

The one thing I'm not sure I agree with: How is it
that "SOOC" JPGs are not lossy? JPG compression is
lossy and various camera settings applied to the
JPG will limit the data. There seems to be some kind
of cult developing about the purity of SOOC.


  #25  
Old October 30th 17, 01:52 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default A lightroom question

"John McWilliams" wrote


Listen to The Duck. He knows whereof he speaks. Me, I worked only on V2
and 3 of LR.....


What is it I said that you disagree with?

That saving out of LR to JPG is lossy?

That images coming from the camera as JPG
have lost data?

That a JPG is actually a bitmap stored in a
compressed file format?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I was never
questioning SD's methods or his explanations
about LR.

I've agreed over and over that the process LR
uses can be used to edit the image without loss,
inside LR. All I'm saying is that it's important to
recognize that LR is not somehow magically
transcending the limitations of JPG. It's merely
storing data about edits.


  #26  
Old October 30th 17, 02:04 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default A lightroom question

"PeterN" wrote

| Yes. But I was responding to the situation where there already are JPEGs.
|

Yes. Sorry to complicate things. There's a
debate raging that's completely unnecessary.
Everyone agrees with this that you said:

"If I have a JPEG in my LR collection that has been previously
exported, since later adjustments will be to the LR copy, and not the
exported JPEG, it will not cause further degradation."

My only point was to not lose track and think
that LR is protecting from JPG lossiness. Not
a disagreement. Just a reminder that any export
from LR as JPG will be lossy. The earlier
exported JPG you referenced was lossy. The next
export will be lossy. The LR difference is that it's
not doing a lossy save internally when you do
edits. So it's fine only as long as the image is
being saved within LR.

Maybe it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but the
fact that this question came up seems to me
an indicator of possible confusion due to the
convenience that LR offers. It's abstracting the
actual process, hiding the details of storing
bitmap data so that you can think of it as an
"edited JPG without loss".




  #27  
Old October 30th 17, 02:30 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default A lightroom question

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| This way you can go on editing and saving JPGs until you are blue in
| the face without accumulating corruptions of the original JPG.
|

I understood that and went out of my way to clarify
to SD that I agreed with his description. All I ever
said was that every save to a new JPG file, out of LR,
will involve lossiness and that that should be recognized.


everyone understands that saving to a jpeg is lossy.

what you don't understand is that there is only *one* save, no matter
how many times the original image is edited.

LR provides a way for you to not have to think about
that. I'm only warning not to get lulled by the convenience.
LR is essentially providing an organizing service so that
you don't have to deal with the file system so much.
Nothing wrong with that.


in fact, it's quite powerful and goes well beyond what the file system
can do.

The difference is that I'm talking in terms of the
data. Some people seem to have very strong feelings
about the word "bitmap". But that's what the images
are. It helps to understand the format.


except that you *still* don't understand how lightroom works.

The one thing I'm not sure I agree with: How is it
that "SOOC" JPGs are not lossy? JPG compression is
lossy and various camera settings applied to the
JPG will limit the data. There seems to be some kind
of cult developing about the purity of SOOC.


nobody said they weren't lossy.
  #28  
Old October 30th 17, 02:35 PM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default A lightroom question

On Oct 30, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

Contentious stuff snipped

The one thing I'm not sure I agree with: How is it that "SOOC" JPGs are not lossy? JPG compression is
lossy and various camera settings applied to the JPG will limit the data. There seems to be some kind
of cult developing about the purity of SOOC.


I believe we are talking at cross purposes.

SOOC JPGs are processed in-camera, and when compared with the corresponding
RAW files there is lossy in-camera compression.
There is a reason I went from shooting RAW only to RAW+JPG. With the Fujifilm
X-Series cameras the SOOC JPGs also have the Fujifilm film emulations
applied. These film emulations are not part of the RAW/RAF files.

Once imported into LR that original JPG will suffer no further compression.
However, since that SOOC JPG is an original which should not be adjusted
directly, with your editing workflow you would either make a copy, or a bmp,
or tiff to edit. With my LR/PS workflow, and as a matter of fact the
standalone On1 & Exposure X3 workflows, all use XMP sidecar files so that
all edits are nondestructive.Remember that with your bmp, or tiff copy, you
have a copy of an original lossy JPG. This is why, shooting RAW only, or
RAW+JPG, rather than JPG only are the better shooting options.

When it comes to the need for a JPG to share, regardless of what the original
file was, JPG, RAW, DNG, TIFF, PSD, there will be compression applied to the
created export JPG, resulting in a lossy file at the export destination, but
we all understand that JPG is going to be a second generation JPG if created
from the original SOOC JPG, and it will be compressed, and lossy when
compared with the original file.

If the exported JPG is sourced from the LR adjusted RAW, DNG, TIFF, PSD it
will actually be a first generation JPG. In all cases the LR user will
control the level of compression, and any resizing in that export dialog, and
in the case of my exported JPGs there is no expectation that any further
editing, or resaves should be made.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #29  
Old October 30th 17, 03:23 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default A lightroom question

"Savageduck" wrote

| I believe we are talking at cross purposes.
|

snip

Yes. What you justy wrote seems thorough, clear
and accurate to me. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.


  #30  
Old November 1st 17, 10:25 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default A lightroom question

On 10/30/17 PDT 5:52 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote


Listen to The Duck. He knows whereof he speaks. Me, I worked only on V2
and 3 of LR.....


What is it I said that you disagree with?


The same corrections that The Duck made.

That saving out of LR to JPG is lossy?

That images coming from the camera as JPG
have lost data?

That a JPG is actually a bitmap stored in a
compressed file format?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I was never
questioning SD's methods or his explanations
about LR.

I've agreed over and over that the process LR
uses can be used to edit the image without loss,
inside LR. All I'm saying is that it's important to
recognize that LR is not somehow magically
transcending the limitations of JPG. It's merely
storing data about edits.


I'm pretty sure that he didn't assert the above paragraph.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lightroom Bug Davoud Digital Photography 2 October 12th 15 10:48 PM
Lightroom question Sosumi Digital Photography 2 September 2nd 07 01:58 PM
Lightroom question embee Digital Photography 7 April 26th 07 04:42 AM
Canon 30D + Lightroom question Scubabix Digital Photography 4 April 2nd 07 04:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.