How do I export JPG photos without any quality loss?

[Skippermark]

Lightroom Version Number

Lightroom Classic 8.2.1, Build 1206193

Operating System

1. Windows 10

My wife is asking for a couple hundred photos of my son. I sort my LR folders by year, month, date, so the pictures are scattered about in a bunch of different folders. I have the ones she wants gathered into one collection, but I'm not sure how to get them copied to another folder on my hard drive. I don't want to re-export and cause any quality loss since they're JPGs. In the past I thought I could just select & drag the images from the LR collection where I have them gathered to a folder on my desktop and it would copy the originals to that folder, but that doesn't work anymore. I recently switched from Mac to Windows, so maybe that was possible on Mac not on Windows or I could just be remembering incorrectly.

If all the photos were in the same folder, I'd just "view in explorer" and copy them to another folder, but I don't want to move them from their original location since they're all sorted the way I like.

So, if anyone has any thoughts, that would be great. Thanks!

 

[Hal P Anderson]

Just export them. If you've edited them in LR, the changes are not made to the files. After export, they'll be first-generation JPEGs, and that will be as good as you're going to get. If you just copy the master files, they will have none of your edits.

If these are files that you exported and re-imported and haven't been changed, you could export them as Original. If you rename them in a numbered sequence, they'll keep your current ordering.

 

[Skippermark]

Hi Hal. The files were originally RAW files that I edited and exported to JPG. Once I edit the RAW files I remove them from the library and back them up. I only keep the edited JPG files in my library.

So if I export the JPGs, they’ll get saved again and recompressed, not over the originals but in a new location at a lower quality. That’s what I’m trying to avoid.

 

[Hal P Anderson]

Read my second paragraph.

 

[BarrySchwartz]

If you export the JPGs as Originals, don't resize, and don't rename, they should be just the same.

 

[PhilBurton]

Hi Hal. The files were originally RAW files that I edited and exported to JPG. Once I edit the RAW files I remove them from the library and back them up. I only keep the edited JPG files in my library.

So if I export the JPGs, they’ll get saved again and recompressed, not over the originals but in a new location at a lower quality. That’s what I’m trying to avoid.

Why do you remove the RAW files from the catalog if you are still keeping them on disk? This is like throwing away your negatives, back in the film days.

If you ever want to do additional editing, you will need to re-import those RAW files anyway.

 

[Skippermark]

Read my second paragraph.

Thanks @Hal P Anderson & @Barry Schwartz. I totally missed the part about exporting as originals. That's what I get for reading the answer on my phone while shopping in a packed grocery store the day before a holiday. I also had totally forgotten about being able to export files in original format. It's not something I need to do very often.

 

[Skippermark]

Why do you remove the RAW files from the catalog if you are still keeping them on disk? This is like throwing away your negatives, back in the film days.

If you ever want to do additional editing, you will need to re-import those RAW files anyway.

Hi @PhilBurton. My original sentence wasn't very clear. I keep the RAWs in LR for several months but then remove them from the library and just store them externally. I rarely re-edit photos or do anything with the originals, so I just keep a JPG version in LR. Those are fine to go back and "relive the memories" and to show to family and stuff. If I ever need to re-edit something, I can re-import the RAWs from the backups. I did that recently with some photos from the early 2000s, and it was neat to see how my editing style has changed.

 

[clee01l]

I keep the RAWs in LR for several months but then remove them from the library and just store them externally. I rarely re-edit photos or do anything with the originals, so I just keep a JPG version in LR. Those are fine to go back and "relive the memories" and to show to family and stuff. If I ever need to re-edit something, I can re-import the RAWs from the backups.

Your edits take up very little space inside the LR catalog file. By removing the reference to the Original RAW file, you lose all of that work and do need to recreate it if you reimport. You can move the original RAW file to the archive drive and LR still knows where it is and retains all of the edits and can add new ones if you need the file in the future. LR does not care where the original file is stored as long as it can follow the path to location the cataloged copy. What space you are wasting is the Exported JPEGs. If you need to send a JPEG to some place else or print a print, you can do that from the RAW file just about as quickly. As your workflow is now, you are removing the original RAW from the catalog and in some step outside LR you are copying/moving the file to an archive disk. If you want to work with that image again, you need to reverse the process, If you move the file to the archive disk using the LR folder panel, you are done and LR has everything to work with again if it needs the original. You have freed up valuable Disk space on the (presumably) primary drive and you have not taken up any space with JPEGs that may or may not be needed again.
The minute you create a JPEG, compression tosses away some of those original data bits available in the RGB image generated from the original RAW data This data loss is unrecoverable. Exports are purpose intended. If you want to send some one a JPEG, export it from the RAW image file and the only data loss is the first generation data loss. If you want to send some one a print, print from the RAW Doing this from RAW, you are always sending a first generation JPEG. Copying a first generation JPEG from one location to another only generates the same lossy file as the first generation JPEG No additional data is lost. The lost data happens when you open that first generation JPEG in an editor and save it as another JPEG It is the "Save As" or Save in that subsequent edit that further loses data.

 

[PhilBurton]

Your edits take up very little space inside the LR catalog file. By removing the reference to the Original RAW file, you lose all of that work and do need to recreate it if you reimport. You can move the original RAW file to the archive drive and LR still knows where it is and retains all of the edits and can add new ones if you need the file in the future. LR does not care where the original file is stored as long as it can follow the path to location the cataloged copy. What space you are wasting is the Exported JPEGs. If you need to send a JPEG to some place else or print a print, you can do that from the RAW file just about as quickly. As your workflow is now, you are removing the original RAW from the catalog and in some step outside LR you are copying/moving the file to an archive disk. If you want to work with that image again, you need to reverse the process, If you move the file to the archive disk using the LR folder panel, you are done and LR has everything to work with again if it needs the original. You have freed up valuable Disk space on the (presumably) primary drive and you have not taken up any space with JPEGs that may or may not be needed again.
The minute you create a JPEG, compression tosses away some of those original data bits available in the RGB image generated from the original RAW data This data loss is unrecoverable. Exports are purpose intended. If you want to send some one a JPEG, export it from the RAW image file and the only data loss is the first generation data loss. If you want to send some one a print, print from the RAW Doing this from RAW, you are always sending a first generation JPEG. Copying a first generation JPEG from one location to another only generates the same lossy file as the first generation JPEG No additional data is lost. The lost data happens when you open that first generation JPEG in an editor and save it as another JPEG It is the "Save As" or Save in that subsequent edit that further loses data.

What he said.

Honestly, you might want to rethink your idea of deleting RAW files based on Cle's post.

Phil

 

[Skippermark]

If you move the file to the archive disk using the LR folder panel, you are done and LR has everything to work with again if it needs the original.

Thanks, guys. I hear what you're saying and that's not a bad way to work. I used to work that way on my Mac. I started creating smart previews for the "archived" RAWs when that feature became available so I could make edits even if the drives weren't connected. When I switched to Windows a few months ago, I decided to start a fresh catalog and not import any of the "archived" RAWs, and it's been working OK for how I work.

That said, do either of you use a NAS? Your suggestion of keeping the RAWs has made me start thinking about one. I considered it in the past but didn't ever do anything. I think it would make it much easier to work with lots of RAW files rather than having to swap disks out. Like, in my original example above, the RAW files I'd need to export are saved on multiple hard drives, and the final result would be the same as the JPGs already in my library, so it's easier to just use those files. With a NAS, swapping drives would no longer be a concern.

 

[PhilBurton]

Thanks, guys. I hear what you're saying and that's not a bad way to work. I used to work that way on my Mac. I started creating smart previews for the "archived" RAWs when that feature became available so I could make edits even if the drives weren't connected. When I switched to Windows a few months ago, I decided to start a fresh catalog and not import any of the "archived" RAWs, and it's been working OK for how I work.

That said, do either of you use a NAS? Your suggestion of keeping the RAWs has made me start thinking about one. I considered it in the past but didn't ever do anything. I think it would make it much easier to work with lots of RAW files rather than having to swap disks out. Like, in my original example above, the RAW files I'd need to export are saved on multiple hard drives, and the final result would be the same as the JPGs already in my library, so it's easier to just use those files. With a NAS, swapping drives would no longer be a concern.

Skipper,

You don't need a NAS, just an external drive with a USB 3 or better yet a USB 3.1 connection, unless you want these photos available to multiple systems. A NAS will definitely below slower than an external drive plugged into your system. www.newegg.com is a good site, if are in the USA, or www.newegg.ca if you are in Canada. Stick with WD drives, meaning avoid Seagate drives. This link may be helpful. 3TB and higher, Western Digital, Desktop External Hard Drives, Hard Drives, Components - Newegg.com

Phil Burton

 

[Skippermark]

You don't need a NAS, just an external drive with a USB 3 or better yet a USB 3.1 connection

I currently have about 6TB of files on external drives, and it's a little cumbersome to swap them out if I needed files on multiple drives. I was recently hired for a job that requires me to shoot photos plus a huge amount of videos. They tell me once the photos & videos have been used they won't need them again, but I'm still backing up everything just in case. If I continue to shoot this much video, a NAS would make it much easier to store everything.

About 2 weeks ago, I did something totally stupid. I was rushing to meet a deadline and had an external hard drive plugged into my computer and needed to format a flash drive, so I plugged it in and accidentally formatted the hard drive. I felt like my world had ended and I was like, "What have you done?" I know I could have maybe "unformatted" it, but I'm always leary of doing that. Thankfully, I backup everything and was able to get it restored. I don't think I would have accidentally formatted a NAS. Not even sure if one could be formatted from within Explorer.

I'm going to give it a couple months to see how much I shoot with this company and then may make the plunge. If I do, I will definitely go with WD, probably the Red Pros. I used to use other brands of externals and had problems, but the WD's run great, even the inexpensive USB drives. Thanks again!

 

[PhilBurton]

I currently have about 6TB of files on external drives, and it's a little cumbersome to swap them out if I needed files on multiple drives. I was recently hired for a job that requires me to shoot photos plus a huge amount of videos. They tell me once the photos & videos have been used they won't need them again, but I'm still backing up everything just in case. If I continue to shoot this much video, a NAS would make it much easier to store everything.

If you need more than say 8 TB, then NAS is the only way to go. From what I have read, you should avoid Dropo. Synology seems to be highly regarded.

About 2 weeks ago, I did something totally stupid. I was rushing to meet a deadline and had an external hard drive plugged into my computer and needed to format a flash drive, so I plugged it in and accidentally formatted the hard drive. I felt like my world had ended and I was like, "What have you done?" I know I could have maybe "unformatted" it, but I'm always leary of doing that. Thankfully, I backup everything and was able to get it restored. I don't think I would have accidentally formatted a NAS. Not even sure if one could be formatted from within Explorer.

Which is exactly why all Lightroom-related files need to be backed up. This has happened to all of us at some point in time.

I'm going to give it a couple months to see how much I shoot with this company and then may make the plunge. If I do, I will definitely go with WD, probably the Red Pros. I used to use other brands of externals and had problems, but the WD's run great, even the inexpensive USB drives. Thanks again!

There are only a few drive manufacturers left. Hitachi or HGST (if you can still find them) and WD make good drives. Avoid Seagate and bit players like Toshiba.

Phil

 

[clee01l]

I've used a NAS in the past. I found the latency (at 300 mbits) to slow to bring back an archived file. I don't think a Gigabit ethernet is that much if an improvement though I have not tested. The only NAS that I used is a TimeCapsule that has 9TB of storage. My iMac has 14TB of Thunderbolt2 attached external files for archival (LR cataloged) image files and alternate Time Machine backup.

I use a retina MBPro for travel and keep a travel LR catalog on it. I have a 1TB of Thunderbolt2 portable disk drive for the rMPB and another for the rMBP TimeMachine backup when I am off my home network.
I can't over stress the importance of backups and I believe in redundant backups. Every disk drive will fail. Usually when you need it most. And there is always what I call "Stupid User Mistakes" they we have all made when under duress.

 

[BarrySchwartz]

Drives have gotten cheaper and cheaper. I keep my still and video images on separate drives, since they won't be worked on at the same time, and video requires so much more computing power than stills, anyway. As for backups, and excuse if you already use these, there is solid software that makes it easy and automatic. For PC, there is VIceVersa, Syncback, Retrospect, and Acronis. I am not a RAID person (or NAS, which is usually used for teams), but enclosures are not expensive, and bare-drive units rather than enclosures make it really easy to store drives when you want to backup manually. Even though you're Windows, Other World Computing is a good source for drives, cables, and other externals.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

I currently have about 6TB of files on external drives, and it's a little cumbersome to swap them out if I needed files on multiple drives.

You can pick up a multi-bay enclosure for a reasonable price (this is the one I have, 4 bays), and stuff it full of big affordable 2TB or 4TB bare drives so you don't have to swap. I chose that over an NAS because:

• I don't need it to be on the network because only one computer needs to use the images, so there's no need to deal with configuring and managing an NAS
• As an enclosure that supports USB 3.1 Gen 2, it's capable of far higher transfer speeds than a Gigabit Ethernet NAS. Fast enough to support SSDs, if I put them in the drive bays in the future.

At the moment, I'm only using 3 of the 4 bays. But for example you could fit 16TB of storage in there if you put four 4TB drives inside it.

Back when I used individual external hard drives, I got tired of the "cable spaghetti" that can result from connecting multiple drives, and the number of outlets that needed on the power strip. The multi-bay enclosure is much simpler, because you can have all that storage available using just one USB cable to the computer, and needing only one outlet on the power strip.

They also sell a 2-bay version for about $85.

 

[PhilBurton]

Drives have gotten cheaper and cheaper. I keep my still and video images on separate drives, since they won't be worked on at the same time, and video requires so much more computing power than stills, anyway. As for backups, and excuse if you already use these, there is solid software that makes it easy and automatic. For PC, there is VIceVersa, Syncback, Retrospect, and Acronis. I am not a RAID person (or NAS, which is usually used for teams), but enclosures are not expensive, and bare-drive units rather than enclosures make it really easy to store drives when you want to backup manually. Even though you're Windows, Other World Computing is a good source for drives, cables, and other externals.

I have been using Retrospect for years. More useful than same-system-only backups like Macrium, which is the current darling of the tech enthusiast crowd. Also more complex to set up.

Phil Burton

 

[MikeFoto]

I've used a NAS in the past. I found the latency (at 300 mbits) to slow to bring back an archived file. I don't think a Gigabit ethernet is that much if an improvement though I have not tested

almost all modern NAS units can saturate a gigabit network and transfer files at 115MB/sec, even with file encryption turned on.

they are a lot more performant these days than they used to be.

that said, they are still “slow” when compared to a local SSD drive in your desktop machine.