Welcome! Login here or Register for exclusive content.
None. The whole idea of using Lightroom is that you don't need to save the edited photos in another format. You only export them in another format if and when you need them in that format, and when you have used them you can discard the exported photo because you can export it again if and when needed.
If you use Edit In Photoshop, the answer is a bit different. Those should be saved (assuming you might edit them further in the future) in a format that supports all the resolution and color and features. Generally that means 16 bit PSD or TIFF formats, with a wide gamut color space (e.g. ProPhoto RGB).
That means PSD needs less space on the hard drive only if using layers? So the quality of both formats are the same?PSD seems to be more efficient in terms of space if you are using layers, TIFF is a bit more widely accepted for as input to other processes.
Yes, otherwise counts what Johan says above.And all the above is only when you do edit-in-photoshop (or some other similar external editor).
I haven't seen a more useless answer to a topic so far. Your answer implies that everyone has LR available any time and anywhere, and that you can use the exact same raw engine in other software to replicate the same results. if Adobe decides to stop LR (or if I decide to stop using it) how do I ensure that the final work is retained if I do not export these photos in some way or another?None. The whole idea of using Lightroom is that you don't need to save the edited photos in another format. You only export them in another format if and when you need them in that format, and when you have used them you can discard the exported photo because you can export it again if and when needed.
I would say it depends on the use you would like to have for these exported photos. If you use a 100% size 80 quality jpeg to print, then that format is good enough for any other use of that product.What is the best format (and which settings for it) to save the edited photos with?
What part of "if and when you need the exported image" wasn't clear?I haven't seen a more useless answer to a topic so far. Your answer implies that everyone has LR available any time and anywhere, and that you can use the exact same raw engine in other software to replicate the same results. if Adobe decides to stop LR (or if I decide to stop using it) how do I ensure that the final work is retained if I do not export these photos in some way or another?
That means PSD needs less space on the hard drive only if using layers? So the quality of both formats are the same?
Yes, it's the same. Choose TIF rather than PSD. There's no difference in size if you choose either of the compression options, and TIF supports everything that PSD supports - except for some pretty obscure options. Those are the Duotone image mode, Displacement Maps, Transparency in InDesign.
You are assuming that LR is eternal. But since it switched to the subscription model it isn't anymore. Before you were licensed a piece of software, now you pay for a service. Unless you save somewhere else your work, you will never be able to reproduce exactly the same work with any other software. Therefore it is lost without LR. The catalog, the recipe, the xmp file are useless to recreate the same output file or screen image, without the LR engine. How do you prevent that? Export your thousands of images last second? If "the internet" goes down, how would you continue using your images if LR can't verify your subscription on their servers?What part of "if and when you need the exported image" wasn't clear?
No, I’m not. If you decide not to use Lightroom anymore, then that is an example of a situation where you need exported images.You are assuming that LR is eternal.
The size difference is usually negligible, though one way to save space with a PSD is to save without maximising compatibility. That is a very poor long term choice since it makes them liable to be unreadable in other apps - including LR. And what you wrote earlier about readability elsewhere seems decisive. Given a choice between a proprietary format and a non-proprietary one like TIF, a few megabytes seems a small price, if you even pay it.
I'm not sure what better handling of layers means, but functionally TIF can do everything a PSD can do, apart from those 3 or 4 obscure details.
LR checks for license every 2 or 3 months (I don't remember exactly) only. You don't need Internet to run LR, except once each 2 or 3 months.Export your thousands of images last second? If "the internet" goes down, how would you continue using your images if LR can't verify your subscription on their servers?
First of all I want the finished, edited images in the best quality I can have. And from that I would make in any case resized images for the website and may be for prints, e-mails or whatever, if need be.I would say it depends on the use you would like to have for these exported photos. If you use a 100% size 80 quality jpeg to print, then that format is good enough for any other use of that product.
But how acceptable they are to other programs, their compatibility, is not a big drawback, isn't it? If one needs the other format an image was saved in then one just could save / export the TIFF in / to PSD or the PSD in / to TIFF without losing quality or causing any problems. I just would take a little effort. Do I understand that right?That rendered format coming back from the editor can be any type (that LR accepts), but is best as a lossless file -- 16 bit TIFF or PSD being the most common. They are identical in quality, they differ in various attributes like how big they are and how acceptable they are to 3rd party programs, but there is no loss in going from one of those types to the other.
TIFF and other losless formats are an intermediate format in best quality, a format which is used to make compressed copies of for special purposes, do I understand it right?Intermediate formats should be losslessly compressed and 16 bit minimum (JPG is 8 bit).
Yes, that was my approach. And - until now - I have been realized it like that. I just wanted the edited photos being saved (and never again edited). So using Lightroom I was not following its paradigma / the use how Lightroom should be used obviously. So as a result now I could not use (most of) its advantages, I guess. May be I should begin to regret that...The problem with Lightroom is that people over decades got used to editing being a "open file, edit file, save file".
For a photo web gallery sRGB is good / enough? Although it is narrow?For exports to the web, printers, etc. you want sRGB (exceptions exist buy you would generally know about them).
Yes, it helps very much, indeed, many thanks!That's more than long enough, hope it helps a bit.
OK, TIFF then with 16 bits, ProPhotoRGB for best quality.Yes, it's the same. Choose TIF rather than PSD. There's no difference in size if you choose either of the compression options, and TIF supports everything that PSD supports - except for some pretty obscure options. Those are the Duotone image mode, Displacement Maps, Transparency in InDesign.
The default TIFF is not compressed? Or is it? Give up? But the only thing one would have to do is just to unzip it first to get back the bigger compatibility, a little effort or is there anything else I am missing? Are there other drawbacks than the compatibility, space?Note that Tiff using default, not zip, compression (for more coimpaibility) is larger still. So a lot of this depends on how much compatibility you may give up.
Sorry, I do not understand, what is the downnside when using a less compatible format (like TIFF?)?It is important to note -- since these are intermediate formats, there is little downside in using a less compatible format, since you could always (without loss of quality) open it, and re-save in a different format.
Yes, that is right.I won't quote all the above but try to zero in on where some of the issue may be. I THINK your screen shots are from the export.
But, what I still do not understand: if one has more than one version of an image, e.g. 5 versions of a single image, how can one Lightroom make to automatically export those 5 versions (different crops, presets, colors, etc.) of an image (instead only one of them) for a special purposal? And how can oneself recognise, find images which have more than one version.
And should I check "Save Transparency"?
Sorry for my bad expression: suppose I have 100 photos to be exported, among them are 10 images wich have different versions of each image, one of the 10 images have 3 different versions, others 5 and 8 versions. I want these versions to be exported, so all versions of these 10 images shall be exported as well. How can I make Lightroom to automatically export these versions together with the 90 ohter images not having other versions (without to search for each image that has more than one version and manually export each version of an image)?That's for you to decide. You would select the one(s) you need for the specific purpose based on choosing the crop or colour or whatever.
Might there be any drawback to check it anyway? Or not to check it?And should I check "Save Transparency"?
I do, but unless you are using those images in InDesign I don't think it matters.