Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
As long as they look fine I wouldn't bother.
You don't use jpeg to get the highest quality anyway, and more importantly, anyone familiar with how this works doesn't expect the highest possible quality from a jpeg. Just acceptable. And very often, acceptable is all you need.
Any jpeg compression is lossy and destructive, even at the highest quality level. We're all fine with that, as long as that jpeg is a final end product not to be worked on again. It will usually be good enough for most practical purposes.
The whole point of jpeg is to reduce file size as much as possible, while retaining an acceptable result. The quality slider is where you set the balance between those two considerations.
But make no mistake - "maximum quality" jpeg is not really maximum quality. Don't use it as a working format, it will degrade with every resave.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you!!!
Out of curiosity, what is the best format to save a photo in that you are digitally delivering to a client for regular printing (not large commercial printing or workings). I have always used Jpeg not thinking there was any other options for my clients.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I normally send jpeg, but if I know it's for critical high-quality use I send TIFF.
For a normal desktop print, jpeg is fine. Quality 8 or so is usually more than good enough, and at the same time a substantial file size reduction. Quality 12 usually just increases file size for insignificant actual improvement.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Although it’s best to use a seting above Medium for printing, Medium probably isn’t a disaster. Chances are, most people won’t notice, just like you’re finding it hard to see the difference on your computer.
The thing about JPEG compression is that it isn’t linear. Quality is noticeably bad at the minimum setting, it becomes acceptable somewhere around Medium, and at the levels between Medium and Maximum it gets harder to see more improvement. It’s important to notice that as you approach Maximum, the file size gets bigger out of proportion to any differences that you can actually see. For example, it’s often OK to use a quality level a step or two below Maximum, because you get nearly all of the quality at a much lower file size. That lower file size results in a much lower transfer time when uploading many images to an online gallery.
One thing that will affect this is the size of the prints your clients want. If they want 4 x 6" prints, probably nobody’s going to notice. There is a chance that some quality issues may be visible when printing above 8 x 10", but someone might have to look closely.
Here’s how to get a definitive answer to your question: Do a test with one of your session photos. Export it at each of the four Quality levels, and then flip between them in Photoshop to see how good/bad they are. If you have your own printer, try printing at different sizes to see how they look.
If you’re curious about the details, you can study this web page that demonstrates how JPEG quality changes from minimum to maximum compression. Although it says Lightroom, it also applies to Camera Raw and Photoshop: An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you so much!!!