The work flow of a png file is safer for image quality in the long run and is a more favorable file format then Jpeg. It would save a lot of time and issues if exporting from Lightroom was a capability.
Not natively, although you could request the feature.
In the mean time, you can use the lr/mogrify export filter (post-process action) to "mogrify" the exported file to png upon export.
Also, if you are using preview-exporter, it can mogrify jpeg previews to png.
Still, I'm not sure why you would ever want photographs exported as png. I mean jpeg is great for lossily compressed files, and tiff is ok when you need lossless, no?
I think you may have to make a case here. I dont think Adobe has seen the need yet...
PNGs will never be as good as tightly storing and representing bits based on photographic images as JPEG. This is not an opinion, but the result of an unbiased and hard look at the trade-offs one has to make when storing image data in a file format. You just get better results at better sizes with JPEG. PNG never even comes close.
The only reason to have PNG as an export option is if we also have PNG as an import option (unless we make some export formats an exception to this rule, which complicates things even more), which is a bit of overkill.
Not to mention all the PNG options the export dialogue would have to support. Because when people say they want "PNG" what they really mean to say is "PNG with the following constraints and features".
So, this is not a no-brainer that gives some users a nice feature the rest of us can ignore. It changes a fundamental part of the workflow.
Since the only reason, really, to use PNG is for creative pixel work and/or transparency, then you really want a pixel editor for this.
I'd actually like to see Adobe concentrate more on the emerging file formats like WebP, but I recognize this is just a pet project of mine.
This all being said, I know there is an existing feature request for this around here somewhere.
@Jason sorry to correct you, but the fact that PNG is a lossless format means that you can keep saving the exact PNG file and you don’t have to worry about losing image quality every time unlike a JPG which makes it an appropriate file format.
Your statements resident more of an opinion than an unbiased fact, especially when it is directed to Adobe's support. Adobe Photoshop has this as an export feature, so this isn't a new file format with a ground zero engineering.
Also other benefits over jpg:
Supports 100% transparency. No need to save to a PSD (Photoshop Document) to preserve transparency.
Supports layers with basic effects and formatting.
Lossless format. Your images will be kept at its highest quality.
Smooth lines on web pages when rendered (as compared to rendering a JPG image).
Thanks Rob for the work around I will definitely give that a try.
As far as having Tiff as a lossless file format, is an unrealistic format to manage. It is such a huge file which is not accepted by local print shops, web based networking, and creates more time and costs for storage, This is why PNG is the middle ground between JPG and Tiff and why I would like it as an option when exporting from Lightroom. Its about diversity and options for future use. Lightroom is a costly, high end application and should be flexible to meeting these goals.
I think the previous feature-request/idea was more about supporting png for import.
I see the two as somewhat distinct. i.e. what one wants in can sometimes be different than what one needs out...
My experience is that pngs are not much smaller than tifs (of like bit-depth) - both being lossless..., so filesize is not a significant advantage (am I missing something?).
Anyway, if you need png for destinations that don't accept tiff, that would be a good enough reason for a png export format, in my opinion.
No, PNG does not support layers or effects, and I don't know what you mean by "formatting".
Yes, PNG will require a set of options when saving (compression effort, interlacing, bit depth, etc.).
PNG and JPEG can both show smooth lines, depending on the compression options chosen for JPEG. With a high quality option when saving JPEG, it is lossy, but visually lossless (you can't see the changes) and generally ends up being smaller than PNG on all but synthetic test images.
TIFF is more widely supported than PNG, and can compress comparably. PNG is just more limited than TIFF, and easier to parse.
PNG is seeing use primarily on the web - it's more comparable to the usage of GIF.
You are correct Chris, PNG does not support multiple image layers to allow animation, that line should have been omitted. I over looked it in the proofreading prior to posting. My apologies.
It would have been great to have PNG24 as an option during export.
A picture exported as PNG24 will have more quality if published on facebook vs a picture exported as JPG.
The above-mentioned parameters would go in the 'Additional mogrification' field (export dialog box, preview exporter section, after adding post-process action).
It would be stinkin' awesome if the new version of LR would export as a PNG. This seems to look the best on multiple platforms and especially Facebook.
Lightroom Feature Request: - Export RAW files to PNG format.
Currently, we only have the JPEG option. With PNG option added, we would use in social media, specially on Facebook, that compress our JPEGs a lot and destroy the quality of our images and work.
In my opinion, PNG format is better to use on Facebook Posts, Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp, G+ and other applications.
The JPEG compression of these social networks kills the quality of those images while with PNG we can trust in the quality of the final posted file.
That's why, us, photographers, need a Lightroom option to export as PNG instead of JPEG. JPEG is excellent, BUT PNG is excellent to present in our social networks.
"PNGs will never be as good as tightly storing and representing bits based on photographic images as JPEG. This is not an opinion, but the result of an unbiased and hard look at the trade-offs one has to make when storing image data in a file format." This may be true, but that isn't necessarily the point. JPEGS have to be displayed some where and to do so they need to be uploaded to some third party site. These places usually re-compress JPG files until they are nearly destroyed. When PNGs are allowed, the images are kept in their initial quality.
This is about real world usage, not about lab-based studies.
Please help me understand the r*tar**d philosophy behind being able to import PNG files with transparency in LR, but not being able to export it?
We do more than 700.000 green screen images a year. Color correcting AFTER extraction of green background makes a better and easier job, but it's not possible with LR, as there is no PNG export with transparency.
I have only been working in the industry for a little more than 23 years, so you would think that I've come across things not to understand, but this one is probably on top 1.
Maybe I'm the one being retarded, and then I'll happily wear the medal for a week at work, if someone can prove me wrong with this "little" issue above :o)
Love that LR5 now supports importing PNG images and PNG images with transparency. What LR5 currently lacks is export options for PNG formats (PNG8, PNG24, PNG32), I would love to be able to export images as PNG24 or PNG32 for web.
I'm a photographer using Lightroom as the main tool in my post production. I shoot a portraits and events, and many of my images end up on the web.
I've noticed that when I upload JPEGs to services like LinkedIn or Facebook, the images suffer some ugly artifacts when re-compressed. I've also noticed that PNG24 files do not suffer the same fate.
Currently if I want to supply images as PNGs I have to open Photoshop and fuss around. It would be a big time-saver to have PNG24 as an Image Format option in Lightroom's export settings.
Much of our photography now ends up on the web. The option to have a web-friendly loss-less format we can export to seems important. It will ensure we can maintain the integrity of our images when they're saved and re-saved by web applications.
Adobe, come on! 6 years ago, It's not possible to export native png from Lightroom. Are you serious about that? 😞 Please focus on Lightroom Desktop, not mobile apps
Agreed! Another thing that bothers me is no secondary location for saving the catalog. When importing images, you can also import to a secondary location. When saving the catalog, why can't it ask for an additional location to save it?
I've been wanting this feature for years, I don't understand why it isn't there yet. The compression of JPEG can be a real problem at times with things like smooth gradients that may be in certain images. PNG doesn't have this problem. I'm typically more concerned about image quality than file size.
Can you please add .PNG in the Export Window? I shoot products and need to export over 1000 PNG's, so it would be easier if I could just do 'select all' and export from Lightroom Classic instead of making actions in PS. Thanks.
36
Replies
AdChoices
