What jpeg quality settings to use?

Energize · 7 Sep 2012 at 13:52

Once you've finalised editing a photo and want to save a copy to "publish" what jpeg quality setting do you tend to use? I can't tell the difference between 75% and 100% for example.

Nexus · 7 Sep 2012 at 13:57

Depends where its going.

I export photos for Flickr at 100% because it stores the originals (with a Pro account). Thus if all my backups are gone, I've got full res jpegs online at least.

Energize · 7 Sep 2012 at 14:02

For putting on the web; my website, Facebook, Flickr etc.

I don't foresee all my backup copies being destroyed.

BluSky · 7 Sep 2012 at 14:03

Whatever quality you will be happy with. If you cannot see any difference between 75% and 100% then there is no problem opting for 75%. Jpegs dont take up much space anyway though so assuming space is not an issue why not store them at 100% and have done with?

Vertigo · 7 Sep 2012 at 14:03

On the subject of JPG files, does anyone have quality issues with them? When I export JPGs from LR, I often find there's obvious banding in some areas. Is this just a limitation of the JPG format or am I doing something wrong?

Energize · 7 Sep 2012 at 14:06

I don't mean storing for archival purposes, I just mean a temporary lossy copy for quickly uploading to the internet, at 100% they'd be much slower to upload.

Nexus · 7 Sep 2012 at 14:12

Energize said:
I don't mean storing for archival purposes, I just mean a temporary lossy copy for quickly uploading to the internet, at 100% they'd be much slower to upload.

100% unless you need them uploaded really quickly, or the website is going to have a size restriction or is likely to re-process the image.

D.P. · 7 Sep 2012 at 15:35

Energize said:
I don't mean storing for archival purposes, I just mean a temporary lossy copy for quickly uploading to the internet, at 100% they'd be much slower to upload.

To quickly display on the lies of ocuk, put on flickr, share with family Etc I resize to 800px max length and save at jpg 80%. technically, some photos puld be saved t a higher compression, some lower but it takes to long to optimally compress individual photos.

However, whenever possible I will use 100% jpg or tiff.

You also have to be careful of sites like Flickr which will recode your jpegs to higher compression and smaller resolution. You don't want to introuce multipass compression artifacts. It makes sense to upload 100% full res jgs to Flickr to get the best smaller res photos from it, but I don't like uploading full resolution photos to such a service.

Energize · 7 Sep 2012 at 17:09

Ok, thanks.

If I have images that I want to archive at a low resolution due to quality, do I need to downscale after cropping and then sharpen, or can I just sharpen them at the zoom level the image will be downscaled to, then export?

James J · 7 Sep 2012 at 17:13

D.P. said:
To quickly display on the lies of ocuk, put on flickr, share with family Etc I resize to 800px max length and save at jpg 80%. technically, some photos puld be saved t a higher compression, some lower but it takes to long to optimally compress individual photos.

However, whenever possible I will use 100% jpg or tiff.

You also have to be careful of sites like Flickr which will recode your jpegs to higher compression and smaller resolution. You don't want to introuce multipass compression artifacts. It makes sense to upload 100% full res jgs to Flickr to get the best smaller res photos from it, but I don't like uploading full resolution photos to such a service.

Why on earth would you want to use a .tiff file as they are as big as RAW, if not bigger, depending on the camera.

I only export to jpeg, nothing else.

D.P. · 7 Sep 2012 at 17:22

James J said:
Why on earth would you want to use a .tiff file as they are as big as RAW, if not bigger, depending on the camera.

I only export to jpeg, nothing else.

If you want to maximise image quality while maintaining a lossless format that is compatible with different computers/OS/software that can be printed at the highest quality, can support 16bit colour depth instead of the 8bit of jpg, the image is likely to be re-processed and you don't want to give away your raw files.

JPG is fine for viewing on a computer screen and most printing needs but is only a final output file, it should never be re-processed. If you want the highest quality then you need to export as 16bit Tiff. That is the industry standard the graphic designers will want to work with although they will accept jpg at 100%. If I sell a photo to a professional designer then they ask for 16 bit tiffs generated straight from RAW as a preference.

I don't archive 16bit tiffs but it would probably make sense because if I loose the light-room catalog then all my hundreds of hours of processing time will have been lost.

James J · 7 Sep 2012 at 17:28

D.P. said:
If you want to maximise image quality while maintaining a lossless format that is compatible with different computers/OS/software that can be printed at the highest quality, can support 16bit colour depth instead of the 8bit of jpg, the image is likely to be re-processed and you don't want to give away your raw files.

JPG is fine for viewing on a computer screen and most printing needs but is only a final output file, it should never be re-processed. If you want the highest quality then you need to export as 16bit Tiff. That is the industry standard the graphic designers will want to work with although they will accept jpg at 100%. If I sell a photo to a professional designer then they ask for 16 bit tiffs generated straight from RAW as a preference.

I don't archive 16bit tiffs but it would probably make sense because if I loose the light-room catalog then all my hundreds of hours of processing time will have been lost.

I'd never supply one of my clients with fully modifiable files unless they paid a massive sum of money for them as the image I produce, regardless of what it originally looked like, is the image I'll sell.

I know what you mean about graphics designers and such life wanting a 16bit file but how many forum users, probably including the OP, would be put in that sort of situation? 100% JPEG is the way forward, especially if you want to preserve your edits. You'd only come to a point where it wasn't a good idea if you sold an image where the buyer wanted to do a massive edit on it themselves, as we all know you can't push a jpeg as far as a RAW (although you can get very close if you really put the time in, as many articles suggest).