A lightroom question

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

On 10/29/2017 12:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Oct 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 10/28/2017 11:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Snipped understood stuff


Have you been able to follow any of what I have detailed, regarding
re-editing both PS and/or LR exported files?

If so, has it helped provide enough guidance to answer your question?

I was just wondering about that.

Thank you. All of it.

Great! I know that not everybody uses LR + PS the same way. It is just that
I have found the method I have detailed above, the one which works best for
me, and I hoped that you would find it useful. Perhaps even find a way to work
it into your workflow.

I have a confession, ever since I started shooting RAW+JPEG to get my SOOC
Fujifilm JPEGs, I have some JPEGs in LR. However they are not the result of
processing and/or editing RAW files.

I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lightroom/jpgs-lightroom/

Damn! That is one badly designed web site. However, he has some valid
information.

Just to clarify things, if you are going to isolate JPEG editing to LR then
you will have a true non-destructive workflow, especially if you only edit LR
Virtual copies, but once you leave the LR environment all bets are off. An
exported file converted to JPEG, or from an LR edited JPEG original which has
been resized and subject to compression is undoubtably lossy. That is one
reason to follow the method I detailed for re-editing exported files JPEG, or
RAW/TIFF/PSD.

So, LR, or RAW, always start on a LR Virtual copy.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lightroom/jpgs-lightroom/

Damn! That is one badly designed web site. However, he has some valid
information.

it's ugly, but it works just fine.

what problems are you seeing?

"PeterN" wrote

| I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
| make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
| working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
| there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
| each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.
|
| https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lightroom/jpgs-lightroom/
|

He's a bit evasive, focussing on how you can
make edits and save them as memory in LR. What
you say matches his description. That's fine, but if
you edit a JPG you eventually have to save it again
and that's going to degrade it. No way around that.
"Only one change" is one change too many if it wasn't
necessary. If you work with them in LR as
TIFs and never deal with JPG except to save for
some target that requires JPG, isn't that the best
option?
In other words, why not RAW - TIF and then
only save to JPG if you have to for the sake of size
or recipient limitations? JPG shouldn't be thought of
as a storage format. It's only used for photos
because it's universal and most people don't edit.
It's *not* used because it's an appropriate format.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
| make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
| working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
| there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
| each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.
|
| https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lightroom/jpgs-lightroom/
|

He's a bit evasive, focussing on how you can
make edits and save them as memory in LR. What
you say matches his description. That's fine, but if
you edit a JPG you eventually have to save it again
and that's going to degrade it. No way around that.
"Only one change" is one change too many if it wasn't
necessary. If you work with them in LR as
TIFs and never deal with JPG except to save for
some target that requires JPG, isn't that the best
option?

no. raw is the best option.

In other words, why not RAW - TIF and then
only save to JPG if you have to for the sake of size
or recipient limitations? JPG shouldn't be thought of
as a storage format. It's only used for photos
because it's universal and most people don't edit.
It's *not* used because it's an appropriate format.

tiff is not the best choice because tiff is 'cooked'.

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

wrote

I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lightroom/jpgs-lightroom/

He's a bit evasive, focussing on how you can make edits and save them as memory in LR. What
you say matches his description. That's fine, but if you edit a JPG you eventually have to save it again
and that's going to degrade it. No way around that. "Only one change" is one change too many if it wasn't
necessary. If you work with them in LR as TIFs and never deal with JPG except to save for
some target that requires JPG, isn't that the best option?

Do you use anything Adobe?

The first thing is to understand how LR works. If you are working with JPEG
original files in LR all adjustments/edits are not applied directly to the
original, but to XMP sidecar files. The JPEG is not altered. The first thing
most sensible LR users will do is create a virtual copy and make all edits
and adjustments to that. There is no reason to save an adjusted file back to
LR as a JPEG, so there is no saving it again to degrade the file regardless
of whether or not you are editing a JPEG or a RAW file. If you need an
edited/adjusted JPEG for sharing, or some other purpose you can get it via
the LR export dialog. If it interests you at all, I suggest you read some of
the other information in this thread.

In other words, why not RAW - TIF and then only save to JPG if you have to for the sake of size
or recipient limitations?

There is no need to save to JPEG. When I had a RAW only workflow all LR edits
were made to an LR Virtual copy of the RAW file. If I needed to use a
process, or technique not available to LR I use either PS, or another plug-in
as an external editor. The result is returned with adjustments to LR as a
TIFF, or a PSD. If I need to share that image I export to email, sharing
service, or cloud service, and all resizing and JPEG compression is done via
the LR export dialog, with the JPEG created in the export location. The
compressed, resized JPEG never goes back to LR.

Since I started shooting RAW+JPEG so that I could take advantage of the very
good Fujifilm SOOC JPEGS with their film emulations I have RAW files paired
with a JPEG original. If I need to adjust one of those JPEG originals, that
adjustment is made to an LR Virtual copy. There is never and
adjusted/compressed JPEG to be found in my copy of LR. If I need to send the
LR adjusted virtual copy of the JPEG to PS or another external editor, it
edits a copy of the copy with LR adjustments. When the external editor is
done a “Save as� is not used, just a “Save� or an “Apply� to
retun a TIFF or PSD to LR. Again, if I need a resized JPEG to share, I go to
the LR export dialog, so there is never a resized JPEG in my LR.

JPG shouldn't be thought of as a storage format. It's only used for photos
because it's universal and most people don't edit. It's *not* used because it's an appropriate format.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote

| The first thing is to understand how LR works. If you are working with
JPEG
| original files in LR all adjustments/edits are not applied directly to the
| original, but to XMP sidecar files. The JPEG is not altered. The first
thing
| most sensible LR users will do is create a virtual copy and make all edits
| and adjustments to that.

I understand. It's a clever design. I'm just pointing
out that in that scenario there's still the lossy
original JPG and there's still loss in the final save.
So if one is going to work with JPGs then it seems a
good design.

I think we're saying the same thing. You work in
RAW or TIF, then export to JPG only if necessary. I'm just
pointing out that it makes sense to store in non-lossy
formats in the first place, either RAW or something
like TIF, when it comes out of RAW. And if
it's coming from JPG? Why not convert it anyway?
That's basically what LR is doing -- saving some
kind of backup bitmap image. By saving in TIF you
can cut out the middleman and don't need to be
limited to LR. And you can also have multiple edits
as multiple non-lossy files. Like "beach.tif",
"beach without uncle fred.tif", "beach2.tif",
"beach3.tif", etc. And any of those can be worked
on further. Maybe that's not relevant to you. I
like to save whatever I do as a non-lossy file, in
case I later want to proceed from that point to
do something else.

But it's true that I don't use LR. I just use the
basic computer file system. If you prefer to have
LR keep track of your images then letting it handle
bitmap backups may be convenient.

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

wrote

The first thing is to understand how LR works. If you are working with
JPEG
original files in LR all adjustments/edits are not applied directly to the
original, but to XMP sidecar files. The JPEG is not altered. The first
thing
most sensible LR users will do is create a virtual copy and make all edits
and adjustments to that.

I understand. It's a clever design. I'm just pointing out that in that scenario there's still the lossy
original JPG and there's still loss in the final save. So if one is going to work with JPGs then it seems a
good design.

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

I think we're saying the same thing. You work in RAW or TIF, then export to JPG only if necessary.

Not quite, that was what I did when I used a RAW only workflow. Now that I am
shooting a RAW+JPEG workflow with my Fujifilm cameras, if I have to make
adjustments to the SOOC JPEG, I do so to an LR Virtual copy. If I export any
image it is done via the LR export dialog and not saved back to LR.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lk66j5u1z390ipx/screenshot_208.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dour4pztp0o8svn/screenshot_209.png

....and the resized exported result:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwvni0r2ygaymui/DSCF4910.jpg

I'm just pointing out that it makes sense to store in non-lossy formats in the first place, either RAW or something
like TIF, when it comes out of RAW. And if it's coming from JPG? Why not convert it anyway?

That defeats the purpose of having SOOC JPEGs which might have an in-camera
film emulation applied, the RAW file will be just a RAW file, and available
for other adjustment.


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

By saving in TIF you can cut out the middleman and don't need to be limited to LR. And you can also have multiple edits
as multiple non-lossy files. Like "beach.tif�, "beach without uncle fred.tif", "beach2.tif�, "beach3.tif", etc. And any of those can be worked
on further. Maybe that's not relevant to you. I like to save whatever I do as a non-lossy file, in case I later want to proceed from that point to do
something else.

My originals, be they RAW or JPEG are never molested, and I can have as many
edits or variations of any original merely by making as many virtual copies
as I desire.

But it's true that I don't use LR. I just use the basic computer file system. If you prefer to have
LR keep track of your images then letting it handle bitmap backups may be convenient.

There are no bitmap backups.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

"Savageduck" 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. That's loss #1.
You then edit it, say 5 times. Each time it's
saved in LR and there's no loss to the original.
That's good. LR is saving the bitmap image
along with a history of changes you've made.
Each time you work on it, you're really working
on the bitmap and LR is saving that, along with
the edit history data. What's different
is that LR is hiding that complication and you
don't need to keep track of various saved files.
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.

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. 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.

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

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.

| 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.

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.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 10/29/2017 5:17 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"PeterN" wrote

| I would think that in most cases, editing a JPEG file in LR should not
| make any difference, because you are only changing the instructions, not
| working on the file itself. No matter how many times you edit the file,
| there will only be one change,and that will be when you save it.
| each additional edit will be on another copy of the file.
|
| https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lightroom/jpgs-lightroom/
|

He's a bit evasive, focussing on how you can
make edits and save them as memory in LR. What
you say matches his description. That's fine, but if
you edit a JPG you eventually have to save it again
and that's going to degrade it. No way around that.
"Only one change" is one change too many if it wasn't
necessary. If you work with them in LR as
TIFs and never deal with JPG except to save for
some target that requires JPG, isn't that the best
option?
In other words, why not RAW - TIF and then
only save to JPG if you have to for the sake of size
or recipient limitations? JPG shouldn't be thought of
as a storage format. It's only used for photos
because it's universal and most people don't edit.
It's *not* used because it's an appropriate format.



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

--
PeterN