# Exported photos OOF



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hi..last time I was asking a question in this forum it was a problem with my Lr6.14 standalone and ON1. many editing problems. Despite suggested solutions I wasn't able to resolve the issue because the fault lay with ON1. A friend was having the same issues . Fair play to ON1 we both received a full refund for the Raw 2019 version. I seem to be plagued with problems not only with photo editing but my 11 month old 27" iMac  had to have a new power supply unit then photos and screen grabs put into Emails showed the top half of the photo and the rest of the full width photo down to the bottom thousands of very fine coloured lines..like arty wallpapewr.  Text  in screen grabs looked like  it would if  looking at it in a convex mirror..distorted. It took Apple several efforts over a few weeks to sort it including taking remote control of my iMac. That's  been sorted now. 

With Lr4 I used Elements11 for cloning and selective sharpening (usually birds) and NIK (as was) Define2 for NR. It worked very  well for years until I got the new iMac at which point Elements 11 and Define2 could not be read/recognised by it. I don't do a massive amount of photography..steam locos,birds,miltary and commercial aircraft  as and when and the usual holiday photos so I went for ON1 which was not a success as outlined above.  I decided to sign up to subscription Lr Classic  (July 30th )and now I have a new issue..

 Prior to the current problem I've posted my steam loco photos  in a couple of forums and sent them by Email to friends. These were at approximately 400-450Kb. The loco number on the boiler front was always sharp as was the one on the cab and the nameplate on the side of the boiler. This is no longer the case. At full size the photos are pin/tack sharp but not after compression to be able to post in a forum or included in an Email. I asked my friend, who also has Lr Classic and suggested I get it to resolve the above issues, if  he was having the same issue  with his photos..not steam locos ..and he does. I did a test  with a steam loco re compression starting at Quality 100 - 90 - 75 - 50 - 30 -10. All turned out  with exactly the same issue.

I've ticked the box for iMac High Sierra 10.13 but it's now 10.14.6 which isn't an option in the tick boxes here. I shoot in RAW. When I come to export a photo so I can post in a forum or Email it I select Jpeg  and sRGB in the File Setting box. In the Quality box I select  80 - 90 The 'Limit file size box' is left unticked as is 'Don't Enlarge' I've tried 'Output sharpen for screen'..to no avail

For Image sizing I tick  'Resize to fit' and Long Edge 1200. I used to go for 'width/height  1000 x 1000. Infact I've just done that now and got an Email up and selected it from my Finder folder after expoprt and  have the same result. I can't read the name of the loco and the boiler front number isn't sharp..so the issue remains the same. I've taken several loco photos over the past month and because of this issue haven't posted any, apart from two to ask in the forum if anyone knows why it's happening. There were no  responses.Regarding sharpness quality of photos forums are unforgiving places.

The best example of the problem is with the maroon (British Rail Crimson Lake)   Duchess of Sutherland. The first  photo is Clun Castle. At full size both these photos are pin sharp. and the names can easily  be read. Clun Castle , the first one..is in Finder at 703KB..The Duchess 635KB. Just to give a different subject I've just added a Rock Pipet bird. It's 361Kb. It should be sharper. I sharpened it in Lr Classic (Detail)

This problem has put a real damper on my enthusiasm for photographing steam locos but I still get out there to get the shots in the hope that this issue will eventually be resolved, otherwise I'm going to need councelling..lol. 

703Kb





635Kb




361Kb


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Sep 18, 2019)

Please send screen shots of your Export dialogue. Use as many as it takes to show the whole thing. Thanks.


----------



## Zenon (Sep 18, 2019)

The green train is 7029 and red is 6233. The names are smaller due to down-sampling. In all honesty I don't see anything wrong. Looks sharp to me.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Please send screen shots of your Export dialogue. Use as many as it takes to show the whole thing. Thanks.



Thanks for response. I couldn't get the whole page in one screen grab .


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Zenon said:


> The green train is 7029 and red is 6233. The names are smaller due to down-sampling. In all honesty I don't see anything wrong. Looks sharp to me.



Hi..Here's a screen grab at 'Fit' and I can read the name. I'm not sure what 'Fit' size corresponds to, though..next ,as you'll know,is Fill .

Oh.. I'm unable to do that. A message states that it's too large. Something is definitely happening through the export process. One friend saw the issue and said not to worry about it being oof but it's not acceptable. Maybe Hal will come up with something re the export window (above)


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Please send screen shots of your Export dialogue. Use as many as it takes to show the whole thing. Thanks.



I've just seen in my paragraph 3 that a part of it doesn't make sense  because I've missed out a word or two..typos.. 

What I meant to say was that my friend, who has Lr Classic suggested I  sign up to it  which I did. I then experienced the above export problem and I asked him if he had the same issues. He did a test and said yes, he does have the same oof issue.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Sep 18, 2019)

Nothing jumps out at me. What is the resolution of your monitor?


----------



## LouieSherwin (Sep 18, 2019)

Chessman said:


> He did a test and said yes, he does have the same oof issue.



Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by "OOF"? I don't think that you mean "out of office".

-louie


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Nothing jumps out at me. What is the resolution of your monitor?



Resolution is  5K..Retina


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

LouieSherwin said:


> Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean by "OOF"? I don't think that you mean "out of office".
> 
> -louie



Ah.. ....lol..No, not 'Out of Office' but that's good.  Most people  seem to write OOF  for  'Out of Focus'


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Sep 18, 2019)

The engine name on your second image is about 50 pixels long and has over a dozen letters. That's about 4 pixels wide for each letter, which is way too few pixels to draw a letter. I suspect that you're seeing lots more pixels per letter on your 5k monitor in "fit" mode. Lightroom Classic does a pretty good job on export, but it isn't magic. Try bumping the output size to 1800 on the long side and see how pleased you are.

In other words, Zenon is probably correct.


----------



## Zenon (Sep 18, 2019)

Your resolution is set for 72 which is fine. It can be set to 1000 and it won't make a difference for screen viewing. I just leave mine at my print resolution because it saves a step. Also saved a step creating export presets. You may have read you should set screen resolution at 72 but that is outdated. It came from the first monitors over 30 years ago.

Are you perhaps printing with those settings? Is that where you are seeing it not as crisp?


----------



## Zenon (Sep 18, 2019)

In case anyone is interested.

https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/the-72-ppi-web-resolution-myth/


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hal P Anderson said:


> The engine name on your second image is about 50 pixels long and has over a dozen letters. That's about 4 pixels wide for each letter, which is way too few pixels to draw a letter. I suspect that you're seeing lots more pixels per letter on your 5k monitor in "fit" mode. Lightroom Classic does a pretty good job on export, but it isn't magic. Try bumping the output size to 1800 on the long side and see how pleased you are.
> 
> In other words, Zenon is probably correct.



Ok..thank you. I'll do that right now.





Zenon said:


> Your resolution is set for 72 which is fine. It can be set to 1000 and it won't make a difference for screen viewing. I just leave mine at my print resolution because it saves a step. Also saved a step creating export presets. You may have read you should set screen resolution at 72 but that is outdated. It came from the first monitors over 30 years ago.
> 
> Are you perhaps printing with those settings? Is that where you are seeing it not as crisp?




I'll try the 1800 that Hal has suggested and see how it goes. I set it at 72 because that's what my friend told me to do way back when I had Lr3 and first started and I've read it online too but point taken. I send any photos I want printing to Photobox. They use ink rather than laser.I read that only three companies use ink, which I've been told is better.


----------



## Zenon (Sep 18, 2019)

It won't hurt it but not important to do so. Try it for yourself if you feel like it.  Output one at 1 and one at 1000. You won't see a difference.  I have samples but I won't post this time.

Good luck


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Zenon said:


> It won't hurt it but not important to do so. Try it for yourself if you feel like it.  Output one at 1 and one at 1000. You won't see a difference.  I have samples but I won't post this time.
> 
> Good luck





Hal P Anderson said:


> The engine name on your second image is about 50 pixels long and has over a dozen letters. That's about 4 pixels wide for each letter, which is way too few pixels to draw a letter. I suspect that you're seeing lots more pixels per letter on your 5k monitor in "fit" mode. Lightroom Classic does a pretty good job on export, but it isn't magic. Try bumping the output size to 1800 on the long side and see how pleased you are.
> 
> In other words, Zenon is probably correct.



Zeno..I'll read that link later..quite a long read but very informative and useful..thanks for that, much appreciated

Hal...

Wow. .Brilliant. Much better at Long Side 1800. I can read the name. Duchess of Sutherland and Clun Castle is better too.

Really appreciate the help from both of you..Many thanks.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Zenon said:


> It won't hurt it but not important to do so. Try it for yourself if you feel like it.  Output one at 1 and one at 1000. You won't see a difference.  I have samples but I won't post this time.
> 
> Good luck


Just a quickie to wrap up. Shall I leave the resolution at 72, then ?  I ask because you said it was fine at this value.. I had a quick overview of the article  stating that 72 was in a by-gone age , as you mentioned but I didn't see, in a quick look, what it should currently be.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hal P Anderson said:


> The engine name on your second image is about 50 pixels long and has over a dozen letters. That's about 4 pixels wide for each letter, which is way too few pixels to draw a letter. I suspect that you're seeing lots more pixels per letter on your 5k monitor in "fit" mode. Lightroom Classic does a pretty good job on export, but it isn't magic. Try bumping the output size to 1800 on the long side and see how pleased you are.
> 
> In other words, Zenon is probably correct.





Zenon said:


> The green train is 7029 and red is 6233. The names are smaller due to down-sampling. In all honesty I don't see anything wrong. Looks sharp to me.




Looks like it isn't going to work in my main forum. Someone called Saintsfan (James) has asked about forum photo size. I checked the size of the 1800 Long Side photo.  It's 1.5 Mb but the  Long Side limit is 1024 .

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/phot-sizes.698845/


----------



## Jim Wilde (Sep 18, 2019)

Chessman said:


> Looks like it isn't going to work in my main forum. Someone called Saintsfan (James) has asked about forum photo size. I checked the size of the 1800 Long Side photo.  It's 1.5 Mb but the  Long Side limit is 1024 .


Try dropping the quality slider down to 75, that should have no impact on the image but will have an impact on the size of the exported file.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Sep 18, 2019)

If you have a maximum of 1024 long side, you'll need to devote more pixels to the name. Try cropping tighter.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Jim Wilde said:


> Try dropping the quality slider down to 75, that should have no impact on the image but will have an impact on the size of the exported file.



Dropped it  77 Quality. It gives the same 833Kb thast 75 does. I'll try it up  one by one until it goes up on size and go it down to t 833KB which should be ok. It looks good to me.  The blurring isn't there..it's just small. I took it to Q88 but that took it to 1.1MB so it looks like I've hit the max at Q77....Thanks,Jim.


----------



## Zenon (Sep 18, 2019)

By the w


Chessman said:


> Just a quickie to wrap up. Shall I leave the resolution at 72, then ?  I ask because you said it was fine at this value.. I had a quick overview of the article  stating that 72 was in a by-gone age , as you mentioned but I didn't see, in a quick look, what it should currently be.



For screen that value is fine because PPI is only used for print resolution or basically printing.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Zenon said:


> For screen that value is fine because PPI is only used for print resolution or basically printing.
> 
> That's Great..thank you.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Sep 18, 2019)

Chessman said:


> Dropped it  77 Quality. It gives the same 833Kb thast 75 does. I'll try it up  one by one until it goes up on size and go it down to t 833KB which should be ok. It looks good to me.  The blurring isn't there..it's just small. I took it to Q88 but that took it to 1.1MB so it looks like I've hit the max at Q77....Thanks,Jim.


For an explanation, have a read of this: An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Jim Wilde said:


> For an explanation, have a read of this: An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings




Thanks,Jim. I'll read that tomorrow as I've just started watching PSG  V Real Madrid....BTSport.  Bale has started. He's off to  play China in January. (maybe you're not a football man..lol)


----------



## Chessman (Sep 18, 2019)

Hi..last time I was asking a question in this forum it was a problem with my Lr6.14 standalone and ON1. many editing problems. Despite suggested solutions I wasn't able to resolve the issue because the fault lay with ON1. A friend was having the same issues . Fair play to ON1 we both received a full refund for the Raw 2019 version. I seem to be plagued with problems not only with photo editing but my 11 month old 27" iMac  had to have a new power supply unit then photos and screen grabs put into Emails showed the top half of the photo and the rest of the full width photo down to the bottom thousands of very fine coloured lines..like arty wallpapewr.  Text  in screen grabs looked like  it would if  looking at it in a convex mirror..distorted. It took Apple several efforts over a few weeks to sort it including taking remote control of my iMac. That's  been sorted now. 

With Lr4 I used Elements11 for cloning and selective sharpening (usually birds) and NIK (as was) Define2 for NR. It worked very  well for years until I got the new iMac at which point Elements 11 and Define2 could not be read/recognised by it. I don't do a massive amount of photography..steam locos,birds,miltary and commercial aircraft  as and when and the usual holiday photos so I went for ON1 which was not a success as outlined above.  I decided to sign up to subscription Lr Classic  (July 30th )and now I have a new issue..

 Prior to the current problem I've posted my steam loco photos  in a couple of forums and sent them by Email to friends. These were at approximately 400-450Kb. The loco number on the boiler front was always sharp as was the one on the cab and the nameplate on the side of the boiler. This is no longer the case. At full size the photos are pin/tack sharp but not after compression to be able to post in a forum or included in an Email. I asked my friend, who also has Lr Classic and suggested I get it to resolve the above issues, if  he was having the same issue  with his photos..not steam locos ..and he does. I did a test  with a steam loco re compression starting at Quality 100 - 90 - 75 - 50 - 30 -10. All turned out  with exactly the same issue.

I've ticked the box for iMac High Sierra 10.13 but it's now 10.14.6 which isn't an option in the tick boxes here. I shoot in RAW. When I come to export a photo so I can post in a forum or Email it I select Jpeg  and sRGB in the File Setting box. In the Quality box I select  80 - 90 The 'Limit file size box' is left unticked as is 'Don't Enlarge' I've tried 'Output sharpen for screen'..to no avail

For Image sizing I tick  'Resize to fit' and Long Edge 1200. I used to go for 'width/height  1000 x 1000. Infact I've just done that now and got an Email up and selected it from my Finder folder after expoprt and  have the same result. I can't read the name of the loco and the boiler front number isn't sharp..so the issue remains the same. I've taken several loco photos over the past month and because of this issue haven't posted any, apart from two to ask in the forum if anyone knows why it's happening. There were no  responses.Regarding sharpness quality of photos forums are unforgiving places.

The best example of the problem is with the maroon (British Rail Crimson Lake)   Duchess of Sutherland. The first  photo is Clun Castle. At full size both these photos are pin sharp. and the names can easily  be read. Clun Castle , the first one..is in Finder at 703KB..The Duchess 635KB. Just to give a different subject I've just added a Rock Pipet bird. It's 361Kb. It should be sharper. I sharpened it in Lr Classic (Detail)

This problem has put a real damper on my enthusiasm for photographing steam locos but I still get out there to get the shots in the hope that this issue will eventually be resolved, otherwise I'm going to need councelling..lol. 

703Kb





635Kb




361Kb


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Sep 19, 2019)

Do the" OOF" exported versions look that way in a web browser…and only a web browser?
And if you open them in a regular pixel-based image editor like Photoshop, Affinity Photo, etc. do the same exported images look perfectly sharp but only about half as big as they are in a web browser?


----------



## Jeff Donald (Sep 19, 2019)

Are you using Mac/Apple Mail to send your photos? If, so Mac Mail May also be applying additional compression, thus severely reducing image quality.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 21, 2019)

Conrad Chavez said:


> Do the" OOF" exported versions look that way in a web browser…and only a web browser?
> And if you open them in a regular pixel-based image editor like Photoshop, Affinity Photo, etc. do the same exported images look perfectly sharp but only about half as big as they are in a web browser?


Hi..Apologies for delay.

The pohotos are  sharp right the way through from Lr Classic to PS and back. The problem only manifested itself after export but the previous advice re increasing Long Edge and  reducing Quality if too large have produced good results at 833 Kb and  all is sharp. I can read the nameplate . I'll try reducing the Long Edge bit by bit and see what that does.
Thanks.


----------



## Chessman (Sep 21, 2019)

Jeff Donald said:


> Are you using Mac/Apple Mail to send your photos? If, so Mac Mail May also be applying additional compression, thus severely reducing image quality.




Hi Jeff. Yes..I only use my Mac Mail..I was unaware that it could add even more compression. Infact, now you mention it  when I've sent as friend a full size it's tack sharp every time but at full size an amount of  mail compression might not be noticeable.That can be anything from 5MB to 13Mb. There's no problem with full size exporting into my Finder  folder either. The problem  has definitely been on the Export page of my Lightroom but why now remains a mystery. At the start of this thread I mentioned that this problem didn't exist with Lr4 nor Lr6.14 (Standalone)...it's just appeared with Lr Classic. As mentioned, it seems to have been sorted now.

Thanks.


----------

