LR 2.6 and JPEG only capability

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GeekStyle59

New Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
6
Location
Connecticut, USA
Hi Everyone,

I'm new to the forum and come here for help as I am still fairly new to digital as well. My system is decent -- Dell Precision 67' workstation with dual Zeon processors, only 1 GB RAM, 79 HD with 1 TB external HD, Samsung SyncMaster 191T LCD display, but still not profiled due to lack of funds on a disability income. For the last reason, I also only have JPEG capability in the form of 2 complementary P&S: a Kodak Z1485 for indoor shots (hate the Kodak skies!) and a new Canon SX12' IS for outdoor work (as indoors is its weakness).

I've been learning PS CS3 via an email mentor, but I really love LR 2.6. I want to know both. LR's more intuitive interface comes more naturally and is updated over the ACR in CS3, but I'm not sure, lacking RAW capability at this time, if there is any advantage for my situation. I have only today figured out that all JPEGS come out of the camera pre-sharpened and I have no control over this in either camera that I have figured out. :(

My question is how should I best proceed? Work in LR only and only apply output sharpening if at all? Work in LR and then go to PS to apply creative and output sharpening.

Also, I have been opening files in PS and immediately converting to TIFFs to work on. Does this prevent the regular degradation of working straight on the JPEG file?

My interest is the so-called fine art photograph in print form. I do landscape, some portraiture, and some close up nature shots.

Thank you for any help.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Since no one has answered I'll touch on a few things until someone better comes along. Welcome to the forum, btw.
As for converting to tiff right away, this is what I used to do when I shot jpg. My feelings were that I would always have the as shot jpg as my original to go back to if I wanted to produce different versions of the same image, and there would be less degradation for future edits. I have only had versions of Elements, but it's the same idea.
You do have more control if you could turn off the in-camera sharpening, but if that's all you can do you just have to figure what looks best. I think a lot will depend on each image. The final factor will be- are you happy with how it looks. Sometimes just working in LR will be all you need, sometimes you may need to go to PS and do some tweaking, and sometimes the camera sharpening may be all you need. There's no pat answer for that.
While, IMO, LR is at its best as a raw editor, if you already have it I would use it as much as possible so that you know it well when and if you choose to shoot raw. There's nothing "wrong" with shooting jpg., btw. If you don't have it I believe I'd opt for spending the money on a better camera with more adjustability.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks so much, Ernie. Yes, I do have LR 2.6 (a gift) so I will use it as you suggested though it will be a while before I can shoot RAW. And, thank you, especially, for saying that there is nothing wrong with shooting JPEG! I was beginning to wonder if there were no responses just because that is my current limitation.

One additional question: although converting the JPEGs to DNGs would, as Victoria Brampton said in another post, just be changing the cover, is there additional value in learning how to work with DNGs for now?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think LR does a fair job with 8Bit JPEG input. Between LR and PS, like you I find LR has a "more intuitive interface". I find that I can do about 8'-9'% of all I ever need to do withing LR. If a Photo requiires more, I can use the Edit-In feature to transfer the processing to PS or other post-processing software.

Since LR does not work on the original file, Importing the JPEG is all you need to do, With the Edit-in function while one of the options is to edot the original, I would not choose that and would opt for converting to TIFF at that time for those images you want to perform additional processing outside of LR. The degradfation of JPEGs occur because of the Compression/decompression. Only by working on a first generation copy of the original can you be sure that you will not degrade the quality any further. And yes, that copy could be a lossless TIFF. It is the decompression step to get to a TIFF that will introduce degradation in quality. Starting with a compressed JPEG, there is little that you can do to eliminate that first decompression. You can in your camera settings adjust the output for the highest resolution possible and in the case with the Canon, set the quality of the output to 'Fine"

I think you are amplifying the in-camera sharpening feature of your camera(s) In the user guide for the Z1485, it says there is a High, Normal & Low Setting Use the Normal setting and Let LR manage the sharpening. The Canon SX12'Is manual does not mention sharpening at all so you can assume it does no in camera sharpening.
There is no additiona value to convert the JPEGs to RAW and only to TIFF if you are needing to further process outside of LR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thank you, Cleo. I will do ask you suggest. I never knew that the conversion to TIFF resulted in in degradation, too, but it does explain an increased halo I've noticed. I will look for and change the Z1485 setting as soon as I get a new battery later this week.

Are you also an admirer of John Paul Caponigro? That is where I first saw the Proust quote.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=GeekStyle59 link=topic=9274.msg62467#msg62467 date=126738514']
Are you also an admirer of John Paul Caponigro? That is where I first saw the Proust quote.
[/quote]Until your post, I did not know of John Paul Caponigro. One of my other passions is bicycle touring. I first used the signature tag line in that reguard. When Photography became a high focus, I could see that the Proust quote was equally appropriate.

Just to clarify, It is not the TIFF fomat that affects image quality, but rather the decompression of the JPEG where image imformation is not able to be recovered.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=GeekStyle59 link=topic=9274.msg62463#msg62463 date=12673819'']
One additional question: although converting the JPEGs to DNGs would, as Victoria Brampton said in another post, just be changing the cover, is there additional value in learning how to work with DNGs for now?
[/quote]

And no, skip DNG for jpegs. Welcome aboard!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top