Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi am I expecting too much to get a good quality image measuring 1000x750px out of lightroom at 220k? I have good sharpe images (RAW) in light room but with these setting often I loose so much detail. Have looked up lots of things but never managed to improve it. I could be missing something, am I expecting too much at 220k ? These are my settings:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Why are you limiting the file size? IMHO, this is never a good idea except for very rare cases.
Set the resolution limit as needed and set the quality slider.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I am limiting the file size because it is for a website and I have thousands of images on there and it takes up too much space they shouldn't really be as high as this but I'm pushing it 😄
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Do you really need to include all metadata for a photo on a website? Stripping most of the metadata could help a lot to gain quality with these settings.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I take out camera info but i need meta data for google and seo. I didnt realise meta data affected image quality.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Metadata also takes space and if you limit the file size, available space for the image is reduced.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@kimy79691527 wrote:
I take out camera info but i need meta data for google and seo. I didnt realise meta data affected image quality.
Metadata do not directly affect image quality, but they do affect file size. You tell Lightroom that the total file size should be limited to 220 KB. Suppose your image has 200 KB of metadata. Then you effectively tell Lightroom that it has 20 KB left to create a quality jpeg of 1000 x 750 pixels...
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Limiting file size leads to somehow undefined quality reduction because it does not respect the content of the image. Please try with various settings with the quality slider and see where you get to.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Oh that is very interesting I had no idea about the meta data I'm going to try your suggestions. Thank you for your input. 😁
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Normally for the meta data I add info into the description and then into the title and the caption because I thought that Google would use this information positively for my SEO and image searches by people, but I will have to compromise on some of that info but not sure which would be best to take out, I will look into it. I also have copyright as a preset so I don't know if that will also affect the file. I will have a play around and see what difference it makes.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
For publication to the web, for images being viewed on someone's internet browser, export based on image sizing, not file size, generaly based on long edge, your goal should be for a size that fits nicely on the users screen.
Note that where you publish can have ramifications as to what that size should be. Facebook? Flickr, Google, etc.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Isn't the OP already doing that with his Longest Edge = 1000 pixels in your opinion? Note that file size does play an important role on the web too, because larger files take more time to load, especially on slow connections. And slow loading sites lose viewers quickly.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Yes I am making them 1000px. Taking out meta info didn't make any noticeable difference unfortunately
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
So maybe you are indeed expecting too much. It's obvious that reducing the size of an image will make you lose some detail compaired to the full size original. That is inevitable because you now have only 1000 pixels to fit all the detail that the longest side of the original image has in perhaps 4 to 8 times that many pixels. Do realise that 1000 x 750 pixels is less than 1 megapixel!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
hmm, I should have included to not do both, and actually to not touch file size at all.