# Need help with exported image quality



## rayon (Apr 8, 2011)

I am using vista/lr2 v3.3 

question#1) I have always had a problem exporting jpgs don't know why the quality never seems good and I know it is me!!!  cant even make an 8x10 looking decent.  and I using canon 7D I cant make a CD and give to client bcs images are low queality I have to upload to smugmug and then let htem download from there!
question#2) when I make changes to an image do I need to export it in order for me to be able to use the image with the changes or is that image kept somewhere?


(mod note: made thread title more specific to actual problem)


----------



## dj_paige (Apr 8, 2011)

1) Please say more about the "low quality". Describe. And please tell us your export dialog box settings. Or upload a screen capture.

2) If you want to use the photo with your changes applied, outside of Lightroom/Photoshop/Photoshop Elements, I believe you must export the image.


----------



## rayon (Apr 8, 2011)

Low quality I can't make enlargement not even an 8x10 you can print i think up to 5x7 ok this is what I do 
I go to export export to select loc.
I make a folder name it jpg-file
"filesetting" format JPEG, quality 75, color space srgb, I don't check the limit file size
"image sizing" I leave alone
"metadata" I have selected write keyword as lr hierarchy
"post processing" after export show in explorer
Thank for your help


----------



## dj_paige (Apr 8, 2011)

rayon said:


> I can't make enlargement not even an 8x10



I really need more details. What is wrong when you try to do this?

By the way, please tell us the size, in pixels, of the original photo, and the size you are trying to Export.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Apr 8, 2011)

Rayon a screen shot of the Export Settings would be helpful.


----------



## rayon (Apr 9, 2011)

I am not sure if this what you guys need I hope it is :O) Again thatnk you this is really going to open my door for more business


----------



## rayon (Apr 9, 2011)

OKay little byt little I am getting the hang of all this new technology...hope this helps and agian thank you all


----------



## Mark Sirota (Apr 9, 2011)

Looks like the problem may be that your file is heavily cropped, down to 1142x2511.  That's much too oblong an aspect ratio for an 8x10; to expand the short dimension to 8", you'd end up at less than 150 pixels per inch, which is fairly low quality and you'd lose the top and bottom of the frame.

I think you need to consider a different crop, or a different final aspect ratio.  And then, check "resize to fit", specify your final dimensions, and let LR upsize the image for you.  Upsizing won't look great, but it'll probably look better.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 9, 2011)

Rayon, On your third thumbnail I can read only one of the cropped dimensions.  If i am reading this correctly, it says that your image is 1142 pixels in one dimension.  Based upon this reading, your cropped dimensions are not big enough in pixels to produce a quality print.  Your printer resolution is probably 180-300 ppi. BUT you are trying to spread 1142 pixels across 8"  and that means the ppi will really start out at 142 ppi on this edge.  This is not adequate for an 8X10 print. Anything between 240 and 300 will produce an acceptable print, If your ppi is as low a 180 ppi, you can get a marginally acceptable print.  Anything lower than 180 will look like crap.   There is a setting in the export panel for resolution.  This is a field that is ignored by most printers and has no bearing upon the output quality of the print.  You have the field set to 300 ppi,  If you had a printer that did honor that field, it would produce a print that would be no more than3.8" on the 1142 pixel side.  If you want an acceptable print for an 8X10", your crop dimensions in pixels should be 1920X2400 to print at 240 ppi and 2400X3000 pixels for 300 ppi.  You should get a fairly decent 4X5 print using your current 1142 pixel on the short side


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 9, 2011)

Rayon,

The image you're exporting in this example has a cropped size of 1142x2511 pixels. This does not fit on an 8x10, and if you're printing 8 inches high this results (without resizing) in a resolution of 142 ppi. I think this might be one reason for your quality issues, as 142ppi is on the lower end for an 8x10. Also, you're sharpening for screen, which is not optimal for printing.

Try setting your export as follows:

(Choose Matte or Glossy depending on what you are printing).

These settings will upres your image to 300dpi and 8 inches, meaning your 1142 pixels will be expanded to 2400 pixels on the short side.

Beat


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 9, 2011)

Sorry, Cletus and Mark, for double posting what you've said already 

Beat


----------



## Mark Sirota (Apr 9, 2011)

At least we all agree!  Beat, you went the extra mile (as usual) by providing the screen shot.  Well done.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 9, 2011)

b_gossweiler said:


> Sorry, Cletus and Mark, for double posting what you've said already
> 
> Beat


I figured Geoff was still asleep. I did not know there would be three of us hammering away at the keyboard in the space of 30 minutes. Perhaps Rayon will have more questions that Geoff can answer over his morning cup...


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Apr 9, 2011)

clee01l said:


> I figured Geoff was still asleep. I did not know there would be three of us hammering away at the keyboard in the space of 30 minutes. Perhaps Rayon will have more questions that Geoff can answer over his morning cup...


 Cletus!!I'm not usually asleep at 2.48 in the afternoon - maybe having a nap though. Here waiting enjoying my afternoon cuppa though!!:mrgreen:


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 9, 2011)

Mark Sirota said:


> At least we all agree!


 
... and luckily we all got the maths the same with the 142ppi 

Beat


----------



## rayon (Apr 14, 2011)

Thank you I have been without internet but back on track lets suppose I am not printing 8x10 I want to print larger or give that option to the client when I give them a CD.  I always cropped and left it the original image size...I will upload an Image of what I do


----------



## rayon (Apr 14, 2011)

I really want to give my client the highest quality file size for them to print at what ever size they want be it 4x6 or higher sizes like 24x36 how can I do that!


----------



## dj_paige (Apr 14, 2011)

You send them the largest file you have available, uncropped ... in other words all original pixels (edited is okay, cropping is not). Your clients will then have to do the proper crop. Under image sizing, do not check Resize to Fit. Under File Settings, select Image quality of 80 (larger produces almost no noticeable higher quality, but make a much larger photo)

Whether or not this works at 24x36 is a different issue, your original photos may not be large enough.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 14, 2011)

If as a professional you want to present the best composition with a crop, you need to restrict that crop to the size determined by the pixels required to produce a quality image.  If the minimum pixel dimension for a quality print is 240 ppi, then to produce a quality 24X36 print you' need at least a crop  that is  5760 X8640 pixels. You probably don't have that many pixels in your camera.  Since that is the case with most of us, you either reduce quality at large poster image prints or resort to re-characterizing your image file to have the necessary pixels count to match what the printer needs.  Mark suggested this earlier with the "Upsizing" function on LR export.  Another (better?) option is a third party application - Perfect Resize (formerly known as Genuine Fractals) http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/?gclid=CMnr0YONnKgCFcrt7Qod6W_zHQ


----------



## rayon (Apr 19, 2011)

So I understand rule of thumb is try not to crop unless you really have to!


----------



## tzalman (Apr 19, 2011)

rayon said:


> So I understand rule of thumb is try not to crop unless you really have to!


The rule is that it is never a good practice to use cropping as a means of zooming in on the subject. P and S cameras often offer "digital (crop) zoom" as a feature and dissatisfaction in the past with the loss in quality it causes is the reason why advertising copy now distinguishes between "digital" and "optical" zooming. There are two alternatives to cropping; to "foot zoom" by getting closer or to invest in a longer lens.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 19, 2011)

tzalman said:


> There are two alternatives to cropping; to "foot zoom" by getting closer or to invest in a longer lens.



There is actually a third one: Let the lion get closer to you .....

Beat


----------



## Jason (Apr 20, 2011)

Well, no, cropping is supposed to be for you, the photographer, to include only what you want included in the frame!

I suppose if you cropped "in camera" then you wouldn't have this problem, but hey... :}

Cropping is an artistic point of view;  image size/pixels is a production point of view.  They are separate, but as you have seen, linked at some level. So crop to get your image right, and then export at the highest setting you can.  You won't be able to take a normal image, crop it to 10% of it's original size and then expect to print it as large as you could the original! There are limits to what you can do.. however, you _can_ save _some_ work by using something like Perfect Resize (used to be called Genuine Fractals). It can increase image size amazingly in some instances!

Cheers!


----------



## tzalman (Apr 20, 2011)

b_gossweiler said:


> There is actually a third one: Let the lion get closer to you .....
> 
> Beat


 Shooting over your shoulder while running away needs a lot of practice and if you slip once you don't get to practice it again.


----------



## TransitOpDave (May 6, 2011)

clee01l said:


> Anything between 240 and 300 will produce an acceptable print, If your ppi is as low a 180 ppi, you can get a marginally acceptable print.  Anything lower than 180 will look like crap.


 
This whole issue of ppi is a great mystery. My camera's native resolution is 3888 x 2592. I had a perfectly acceptable 24 X 36 poster made by a cheap-and-cheerful lab -- not museum quality by any means but certainly good enough to impress me and my family. The ppi on the tiff file I brought to them was 108 (unless, as a fairly new Lightroom user, I somehow increased it in the export dialogue).

I had no idea what to expect, as I was aware of the "minimum" ppi requirements for an acceptable reproduction. However, I had also read a column by David Pogue in the NY Times in which he said, to paraphrase loosely, that the average person would not be able to tell when a photo was enlarged well beyond the "minimum" ppi requirements. In my admittedly limited experience, he's right.


----------



## rayon (Apr 8, 2011)

I am using vista/lr2 v3.3 

question#1) I have always had a problem exporting jpgs don't know why the quality never seems good and I know it is me!!!  cant even make an 8x10 looking decent.  and I using canon 7D I cant make a CD and give to client bcs images are low queality I have to upload to smugmug and then let htem download from there!
question#2) when I make changes to an image do I need to export it in order for me to be able to use the image with the changes or is that image kept somewhere?


(mod note: made thread title more specific to actual problem)


----------



## b_gossweiler (May 6, 2011)

Welcome to the forums 

The ppi entry in the export panel does not have any effect on the image size/quality, as long as you don't also specify a size in inches/cm in "Resize to fit". LR will export at 3888 x 2592, regardless of the ppi setting. The ppi setting will only be written into the image as a tag.

If you do specify "Resize to fit" in inches/cm and a ppi setting to go with it, LR will calculate the export size in pels by multiplying inches x ppi. I.e, if you specify "Long Edge" as 36" and 200 ppi, LR will calculate the long edge of the image to 7200, which means up-rezing the image from 3888 to 7200 pels by interpolation. On the other side, specifying 5" and 300 ppi, LR will calculate the long edge of the image to 1500 pels by downsizing.

Specifying the export image size in inches/cm along with a ppi setting (if you know what the printer will have) makes sense because LR will calculate the requited output sharpening based on the information.

Beat


----------



## MPRamsey (Nov 20, 2011)

Lots of good information in this thread.  Thank you all for contributing!  I do have some follow-up questions I hope you can answer:

1) Can someone provide all the math formulas used to determine the largest print one can get given the JPG pixel dimensions and a 240ppi (or greater)?
2) Or provide a link to a site that has all the math formulas?
3) When I export my DNG to JPG to upload for sale, what should the Resolution be to produce the largest possible and best quality print?  I know it all depends on original file pixel dimensions but I'm confused as to why LR3 provides that option.
4) Paige indicates a Quality of 80 is the best option to maintain a quality JPG but yet keep the file size manageable. Has anyone performed a controlled analysis to determine what the remaining 20% will provide? Again, I'm after the best possible quality print and am not really concerned with file size.

Any other advice one can give on exporting JPG from LR3 to produce the best quality prints would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Mike


----------



## clee01l (Nov 20, 2011)

Jeffrey Freidl has a blog article on JPEG Quality:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

Walmart has a guide for Photo resolutions for given sizes.
http://photos2.walmart.com/walmart/helpphotoresolution?cookiecrumb=Upload+Photos&topofpagequestion=Recommended+Photo+Resolution

The value that you place in resolution is irrelevant and has no effect on the image file produced.  DPI resolution is an artifact of the original EXIF standard and could be used by a printer to determin the final output size (in inches) based upon the actual pixels found in the image data.  Modern prnters are capabile of resizing images and translating pixels to fir a new size requested by the printer operator.   there are some (websites) that are constructed by graphic designers that think this field has meaning and usually use it as a requirement to limit and reject images.


----------



## erro (Nov 20, 2011)

PPI=pixels/physical size
Physical size=pixels/PPI
Pixels=Physical size * PPI

2592 pixels along one side and 240 PPI will give you a physical size of 2592/240=10,8 inches

On the other hand, the way most people print photos is that they send a JPG-file to the printing company and tell them "please print this as 8*10 inch". Depending on how many pixels the JPG-image is, this will look good or not. As a rule of thumb, 300 PPI gives high quality prints for viewing at arms length. If you print large sizes you tend to view the prints from a longer distance sop you can get away with lower PPI.

So, suppose you have a photo where the long side is 3000 pixels and you want that to print as 10 inches: 3000/10=300 PPI so this will be good quality. However, if you want to print the same file as 45 inces then you get PPI=3000/45=66 which is too low for good quality. But as this is a fairly large physical size you tend to view it from further away so you may get away with it. And if you want to print it as 5 inches you get PPI=3000/5=600 which is more than enough.

Another rule of thumb is that if you have 8-10 megapixels or more, you can basicaly print any size you want. You will get high quality for smaller prints up to about 10 inces. If you print larger the quality decreases but since also the viewing distance increase you may not notice the lower quality.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Nov 21, 2011)

Keep in mind also that the moment you use a jpeg or less than 16bit wide gamut printer you are already compromising the data.
Jpeg is 8bit v 16bit for Tiff........ and that's without compression so while it is handy to know all the details most of the discussion is academic.


----------

