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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |