Does Exporting an unedited JPEG Degrade the Master File?

[Ajax]

Help, please. Here's what I do:

1. I shoot RAW and adjust these in LR2.
2. I export (as TIFF) to PS and edit further.
3. At completion of edit, I save file (from PS) as a full-sized JPEG, which I place in my LR2 library.

When it's time for me to print files, I go into LR2 where everything is easy to find. I go to my full-sized, edited jpeg file, right click and hit EXPORT. I send the thing to a folder marked 'For Print'. Sometimes I'll shrink it down to 4x6 or whatever.

I'm wondering if, by using this one, single, master JPEG file to export multiple "clones" of different sizes, sometimes different color spaces, whether this exporting alone (conducted without ever actually editing my master JPEG) is causing this master file any recompression or other damage?

Am I misusing this function? My plan is to edit down to a master JPEG and use that master JPEG to export from for as long as I keep my photo.

Obviously if the integrity of my original JPEG is being compromised, I need another method.

Thanks!

 

[Mark Sirota]

No, your master JPEG is not being harmed in any way.

 

[Ajax]

Fantastic, Mark. Thanks so much for the peace of mind!

 

[dj_paige]

Maybe I'm missing a key idea here. As I see it:

User sends a .tif to PS for editing and then creates a .jpg in PS and imports said .jpg into Lightroom. Creating a .jpg in PS causes a loss of quality due to .jpg compression.

Next, user does an Export to create another .jpg for non-Lightroom use. This causes a 2nd loss of quality for the image caused by .jpg compression.

Is this correct?

An alternative workflow would overwrite the .tif from Lightroom with a .tif from PS, no loss of quality due to .jpg compression. Then, when exporting from Lightroom to .jpg, the exported photo would undergo a loss of quality due to .jpg compression. Compared to the user's stated workflow, this .jpg would be higher in quality. Granted, saving .tif files are slower and take up more disk space, and that is a trade-off that different people will make differently. But I just want to be sure I understand the process properly.

 

[Mark Sirota]

I agree, Paige, this isn't an optimal workflow from an image quality point of view. Using a TIFF instead of a JPEG as the master will produce (very slightly) higher quality final output. And it would be more natural for the "Edit in..." workflow that Lightroom provides. But it does take more disk space...

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Next, user does an Export to create another .jpg for non-Lightroom use. This causes a 2nd loss of quality for the image caused by .jpg compression.

Yes, you've understood. However some people, particularly high volume workflow, will do a one-touch workflow on retouching, and tiff is overkill.

For example, a wedding photographer - they'll process in LR, and send to PS (or export to jpeg and then open in PS) once, save as jpeg, and that'll be that. They'll output that file as a 4x6, maybe 8x1', but not a billboard. In a real world environment, you can resave a quality 12 jpeg numerous times before you see any visible difference - you can even push that down as far as about quality 8 before you start noticing differences with the naked eye. For those people, 16-bit or large tiff files would just be inefficient. So jpeg isn't the end of the world.

 

[dj_paige]

Thanks, Mark and Victoria! Nice to know I understand things properly!

 

[ernie]

I sure wish LR would someday give us the option to "edit in" PS as a jpg instead of a tiff. Just because tiff is technically superior doesn't mean everyone needs that quality to the Nth degree.
Edit-I just noticed a little plus beside my name, and minus beside others. What does this mean? Did I just wake up from my 2' year sleep and notice it or what??

 

[Brad Snyder]

+ sign means the member is currently on line. (Hard to say about the 2' year sleep )

 

[ernie]

Thanks brad. Well, actually it could just as easily have been 2' minutes. That's closer to my memory span anyway. Neat idea I might add. Mine's fixing to be a - now, it's bedtime. Goodnight all.

 

[Evan]

I sure wish LR would someday give us the option to "edit in" PS as a jpg instead of a tiff. Just because tiff is technically superior doesn't mean everyone needs that quality to the Nth degree.

What would be the advantage of that really? Isn't the tiff just a temporary file? Wouldn't saving it as a jpeg in PS when you are done with it do the same thing?

 

[dj_paige]

In this situation, the .tif is not intended to be a temporary file. It is the way LR communicates with PS, and the way PS communicates with LR. Therefore, it must be permanent.

Saving as a .jpg would reduce the quality of the image. Saving as a .jpg from LR and then again from PS will reduce the quality of the image. I agree that for many uses, saving at the highest .jpg quality will probably be good enough, and the user should have the option in LR of making a .jpg instead of a .tif

 

[Victoria Bampton]

If you open a raw file into CS4 and then do a save as, you can save as jpeg. You can do the same with CS3, but LR won't automatically reimport that. Doesn't do that with Elements though, I don't think, as there aren't the right hooks.

 

[dj_paige]

If you open a raw file into CS4 and then do a save as, you can save as jpeg. You can do the same with CS3, but LR won't automatically reimport that. Doesn't do that with Elements though, I don't think, as there aren't the right hooks.

I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't do what with Elements?

Elements connects with Lightroom and sends pictures back.

 

[ernie]

I just did a little test to refresh my memory-see above post. I sent a file from LR using "edit in" over to Elements 7. It opened as a tiff. I made an edit, clicked save. The save as box came up, I chose jpg as file type and added "test" to the name so it wouldn't overwrite anything else with same name. Then clicked save.
Here's what I ended up with.
1. A tiff file in LR. and in the pictures folder with same name as original and no edits. Correct because I didn't save THAT file in Elements, I saved it as a jpg. And that jpg doesn't automatically go back to LR.
2. A jpg file in pictures with the test added name and the edits included. But it's not in LR at this point. I would have to import it to get it there.
So at the end I have a file in LR which I don't want and need to delete, and a file in pictures which I want but have to import to get it to LR. If we could just send the pic to edit in Elements as a jpg then we'd make our edits and the file would go back to LR as the type we want. Less work.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't do what with Elements?

Elements connects with Lightroom and sends pictures back.

I can't check this because I haven't got Elements 7....

if you choose Edit in Photoshop, can you open directly into PS without LR creating an interim file? Or does LR create a Tiff/PSD and send that to Elements?

I thought it was just CS3 & CS4, but PSE7 might have made the cut too.

 

[dj_paige]

Here's what I do.

I select a pic in Lightroom, then select Edit In ... and choose Photoshop Elements. LR creates a .tif, which opens in Elements. I make the changes in Elements, then save the .tif under the same name that LR created. And then LR recognizes the edited file, and everyone is happy.

Seems to be the easiest approach (although I agree that sometimes it would be nice to do this with .jpg instead of .tif)

 

[Evan]

1. A tiff file in LR. and in the pictures folder with same name as original and no edits. Correct because I didn't save THAT file in Elements, I saved it as a jpg. And that jpg doesn't automatically go back to LR.

Interestingly, when I did your same test in PS CS4 I get totally different results.

I do not get a tiff file in LR or on the disk. I get a jpeg on the disk and it is automatically reimported into lightroom.

In Photoshop it works exactly as you want. I guess that is the improved integration.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

That's because you're using CS4 and not PSE7 Evan... if I'm reading you correctly. And that IS down to the improved integration.

 

[ernie]

:lol:Yep, better in cs4, but not worth another $4-5'' to get. Besides, as LR keeps getting better and better, I use Elements less and less anyway.