Yellow Cast in Lightroom 5 Develop Window

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Greg Berchin, Apr 16, 2014.

  1. As another point of reference, my experience is similar to Mr. Duck's.
    As to .png, I ask "Why bother"? JPGs are the universal format. PNGs were
    supposed to do something great five years ago or more, but are used only
    in some situations- don't know which ones call for it.
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 17, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    ° PNGs are lossless with little metadata
    ° JPGs are lossy with full metadata

    => PNG is an efficient web format...
     
    android, Apr 17, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    ° PNGs are lossless with little metadata
    ° JPGs are lossy with full metadata

    => PNG is an efficient web format...[/QUOTE]

    actually it isn't because png is much bigger than jpeg, making it
    *less* efficient, and nobody is going to notice any difference anyway
    (unless the jpeg is really crappy).

    where png is useful is for the alpha channel & transparency. it's also
    useful for line art or similar graphics with high frequency
    transitions, where jpeg will have problems.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #23
  4. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    actually it isn't because png is much bigger than jpeg, making it
    *less* efficient, and nobody is going to notice any difference anyway
    (unless the jpeg is really crappy).[/QUOTE]

    Oki... That's an opinion. I don't like lossy stuff and pngs are less
    expensive than tiffs and would render faster than those. I like pngs.
     
    android, Apr 17, 2014
    #24
  5. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    Oki... That's an opinion. I don't like lossy stuff and pngs are less
    expensive than tiffs and would render faster than those. I like pngs.[/QUOTE]

    less expensive? there's no cost to use png or jpg or tiff.

    there's nothing to render, but if you mean size and time to download by
    'expensive', then jpeg would win because it's the smallest so the
    download time is fastest, making the web page quicker to load.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #25
  6. Greg Berchin

    J. Clarke Guest

    FWIW there's a freeware plugin that supports PNG. Haven't used it so no
    idea how well it works:

    <https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?
    event=extensionDetail&extid=3275022>
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 17, 2014
    #26
  7. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    less expensive? there's no cost to use png or jpg or tiff.

    there's nothing to render, but if you mean size and time to download by
    'expensive', then jpeg would win because it's the smallest so the
    download time is fastest, making the web page quicker to load.[/QUOTE]

    Your case for jpegs is nonsense if you don't like lossy. But again, if
    you want metadata than jpgs it is...
     
    android, Apr 17, 2014
    #27
  8. Greg Berchin

    Savageduck Guest

    Thanks for that. It is amazing what you can do with the correct
    information. Though I mostly only use PNGs when creating photoshop
    transparencies or with screen captures from my iPad.

    Anyway I have installed the plugin and found the following:
    You have to select *Magic Export* from the "Export To" drop down menu.
    With this option you loose JPEG, DNG, & Original in the standard export
    format selection drop down window.

    It adds DPX, Cineon, JPEG2000, Targa, OpenEXR, & PNG.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_660.jpg >

    The only issue for me is I am not going to be able to create PNG
    transparencies with LR so I will stick to PS for that. As for Greg's
    preference to use PNGs rather than JPEGs this plugin will give him the
    ability to do that.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 17, 2014
    #28
  9. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    you won't notice the loss unless it's a low quality jpeg (or line art,
    which is not suitable for jpeg, as i said).

    this is easy to test. make a jpeg from a tiff or png and paste it into
    the original as a second layer in photoshop and then subtract the two.

    what you'll see is what's lost. if they were 100% identical (no loss),
    you'd see nothing. with a high quality jpeg, you'll see *very* little
    and would have to pixel peep the actual image to even notice it.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #29
  10. Greg Berchin

    PeterN Guest

    I know I'm late for this thread. But, I suspect that, and you confirm
    there is an ICC profile issue. If you want to print your images they
    could be substantially off if you don't set the ICC profile to match the
    profile of the paper. I learned this the hard way when my former
    printing service would not give me the ICC profile for the paper he was
    using. If your monitor is properly calibrated what you see on your
    monitor will be a fairly close match to your print, or other viewing
    device. e.g. A printed made on one particular paper will probably look
    different than the same print, printed on a different paper, unless you
    convert to the ICC profile for each paper. Soft proofing will come
    pretty close to showing-what you may expect the print to look like.
    The same principle-applies to different viewing devices.
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2014
    #30
  11. Greg Berchin

    Eric Stevens Guest

    But as has repeatedly been pointed out by othrs, repeatedly saving a
    file as a JPG between edits is asking for trouble. I never know quite
    what I'm going to do with an image which is why I avoid JPGs for most
    of the time.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 18, 2014
    #31
  12. Greg Berchin

    J. Clarke Guest

    Oki... That's an opinion. I don't like lossy stuff and pngs are less
    expensive than tiffs and would render faster than those. I like pngs.[/QUOTE]

    FWIW, my HTML book suggests that JPEG is to be preferred for photos, but
    GIF and PNG are competing for line art, logos, etc.

    I'm going to try to summarize:

    JPEG is lossy, PNG and GIF (note--TIFF is not mentioned) are lossless.
    JPEG usually gives the best compression for continuous tone but it can
    blur details and thus is less satisfactory for artwork involving lines
    and fine detail. GIF gives small sharp images and allows transparency
    for a single color, making it good for most logos and the like, but it's
    limited to 256 colors. PNG has 8, 24, and 32-bit color so can handle
    continuous-tone well, and has transparancy for any number of colors but
    being lossless it produces relatively large images that are slower to
    download.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 18, 2014
    #32
  13. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    good advice.
    that's a good summary.
     
    Guest, Apr 18, 2014
    #33
  14. Greg Berchin

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-04-18 00:25:51 +0000, Eric Stevens <> said:

    Again, that is the beauty of LR, all edits can be made
    non-destructively on the original imported RAW/DNG, virtual copies, and
    any TIFFs/PSDs which have made the round trip to PS and/or other
    external editor/plugins and back to LR.

    Then at any time you choose you can go to the export dialog to resize
    dimensions, limit file size, and direct to the location of choice. I
    have one of my export presets set to send converted JPEGs limited to no
    larger than 800KB, and dimensions to fit within 2400x940 (that works
    pretty good for online display) to my Dropbox Public folder. I also
    have one which directs to my DB "Savageduck" folder.

    So that export dialog looks something like this:
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_661.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Apr 18, 2014
    #34
  15. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    who said anything about saving jpegs multiple times? where did you come
    up with that?

    and that's only a problem if you open a jpeg, modify it and save the
    results and do so repeatedly. doing that just once is probably not
    going to be all that noticeable if you have high quality jpegs.

    also, some apps can restrict the degradation to just the areas you
    change, so if you only tweak a spot on a corner, only that area is
    recompressed. the rest doesn't change. not all apps do that though.

    anyway, the correct workflow is open the original .psd and save a new
    jpeg, or use lightroom and export as jpeg. lightroom keeps everything
    in raw.
    which is why a non-destructive workflow is great. you only convert to
    jpeg at the end of the process, assuming jpeg is what you want.
     
    Guest, Apr 18, 2014
    #35
  16. Greg Berchin

    Eric Stevens Guest

    People who don't know any better do that.
    You are preaching to the converted.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 18, 2014
    #36
  17. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    Thank you; that is *exactly* the reason that I prefer PNG. Much of my
    work has sharp, distinct lines and transitions. In JPEG they are
    surrounded by "ripples".

    Greg
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 18, 2014
    #37
  18. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    increase the jpeg quality. photos do not have the transitions that
    would cause artifacting unless you're using too low of a quality
    setting.

    where it matters is graphic arts (not photos), such as logos, where
    neighboring pixels can be completely different, and with very few
    colours too. that's not what jpeg was designed for.
     
    Guest, Apr 18, 2014
    #38
  19. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    Indeed. But I find that by the time I increase JPEG quality to the point
    where I can tolerate the ripples (and "banding", which I didn't mention
    earlier), the compression is not all that much better than what I can
    get with PNG. It's entirely a judgment call, but I figure, "Why bother
    with lossy when the incremental cost of lossless is so low?"
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 18, 2014
    #39
  20. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    Your opinion is noted.
     
    android, Apr 20, 2014
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.