• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

How to export photos in the same quality

New Here ,
Apr 29, 2023 Apr 29, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello, how are you guys?

I am writing regarding to an issue that i am having with the Exporting of photos.

I am importing some jpeg files with size around 7, 8 MB.... i just reduce the noise of them since they are a bit grainy, and when i export them again, i have as a result files of around 23 MB each. This means that actually i am loosing quality the photos since i am making them bigger and i don't undertstand why. I assume that this should be some issue with the exporting settings, so i was wondering if any of you could help me and tell me actually wich are the proper settings that i should have in the Export part to EXPORT FOTOS IN THE SAME QUALITY THAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTED.

I will really aprecciate your advice since i need to find a solution for this.

Thank you!

 

in the examples that i attach here the first photos is 7.6 and the second one is 14.6 MB

TOPICS
macOS

Views

650

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2023 Apr 29, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

A jpeg will never come out the same quality as it came in. Don't resave jpegs if you can avoid it.

 

Jpeg compression is destructive, cumulative and non-reversible, at any quality setting. Always, no exception.

 

The reason jpeg still survives as a file format, is that the compression is astonishingly effective at reducing storage and transfer size. Jpeg compression can shrink a file down to 2-5% of full native size, with acceptable visual quality loss. The emphasis is on "acceptable", there will always be some.

 

You should always treat jpeg as an end product for final delivery. It will usually work well for that. But not as a working/archive format.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 03, 2023 May 03, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello, i aprecciate your answer, so thank you very much for that. I understand that exporting JPEG files will always take out some quality,  Anyway please, can i ask you to recommend me wich would be the best solution to export the JPEG and continue keeping almost the same resolution and amount of quality as possible in this JPEG files ? Because we need to do it anyway since we give to the client a first file with all the photos and after that we need to do corrections on their selections. We don't keep the raw files for this, so we are actually re editing the JPEG files.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
May 03, 2023 May 03, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In the Export dialog box, if you do NOT check Resize to Fit, you get the exact same resolution as your original photo (unless you cropped the photo, in which case you get the full resolution of the cropped photo).

 

If you want the best quality you would set the quality slider to 100, but honestly, its nearly impossible in most cases to visually tell the difference between quality 70 and quality 100. 

 

We don't keep the raw files for this, so we are actually re editing the JPEG files.

 

Any workflow that gets rid of the raw files and re-edits the JPG files is not a workflow that will maintain maximum quality, it is inferior quality to a workflow that keeps the RAWs and re-edits the raw photos.

 

The fact that you are still using a workflow that involves re-editing JPGs instead of re-editing RAW photos indicates you do not understand the concepts here, and are making poor decisions based upon this mis-understanding.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 04, 2023 May 04, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello DJ Paige, I believe your answer is very unprofessional and unrespectful since you actually don't know how i work and what i am trying to do. I was just trying to get some advice, but as i could see you are being very rude to me. I just want to let you know that i am very dissapointing and upset about the last paragraph of your answer and i am not making poor decisions at all.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
May 04, 2023 May 04, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

Not rude; just to the point and factual. There is no discussion about the factual accuracy of what dj paige says. It's absolutely correct.

 

You should not re-edit jpegs if you can avoid it; they will degrade with every resave. Discarding the original raw files and keep working on derivative jpegs is a guaranteed way to destroy your files. You can do that if you choose; but we wouldn't be doing what we're supposed to do here if we didn't warn about the consequences. It's not a good workflow and not a good habit.

 

Sorry, that's just the way it is...

 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 29, 2023 Apr 29, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In addition to what @D Fosse has said —

 

File size of JPGs does not indicate quality. You will make a lot of mistakes and drive yourself crazy by equating JPG file size to JPG quality.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 29, 2023 Apr 29, 2023

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's right. Compression level ("quality") aside, image content plays a major part. The way the jpeg compression algorithm works, flat smooth areas compress much better than busy high frequency detail.

 

Here are two jpegs at 1080 x 720 pixels, both saved at the same compression level. The first is 67 kB, the second is 753 kB. The only difference between them is the content of the image:

jpeg low.jpg

jpeg high.jpg

 

This has a rather paradoxical side effect. The second time you save a jpeg, it will often be slightly bigger than the first time. This is because compression artifacts are read as added detail, and so less efficient compression.

 

When a jpeg is opened, it is decompressed back to its native size. An open file doesn't have a file format at all. File formats are storage containers, with the data packaged in a certain way according to the format spec. When you resave a jpeg, it once again goes from full size to packaged state, and the compression runs once again from scratch. It doesn't "remember" the previous compression.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines