How do you Export?

[WhiteLight]

Just a trivial question, but has me going a little dizzy

When you export after PP, let's say from LR, do you choose the size & PPI in program?
Like say, you want an image for your website with the longest edge not exceeding 3000px & obviously at 72ppi.
Do you choose these options in LR & use the file that gets output?
Or do you export to JPG at full size & quality & then use another program to scale and sample down?

The reason i ask is cos i've noticed that the file sizes are much higher when directly exported from LR with the setting input than compared to the other option...
or am i imagining things

 

[Marcel]

You can create many export settings with LR. You could have one for small prints, one for web posting, one for large prints of screen savers. It's all very user friendly. You only have to save your preferate setting and call it back when you want to export.

 

[WhiteLight]

This is what am seeing:

If i export using longer edge at 3000 px & PPI at 72 all keyed into the program, i get a file with a size of around 6mb

Now if i don't input any of these restrictions and just output the file at its original dimensions at 300ppi (which is probably the highest) & then open the image in Preview (or a similar program), then resize & resample to the same as earlier - 3000px and 72ppi, the image is around 2mb

 

[Marcel]

This is what am seeing:

If i export using longer edge at 3000 px & PPI at 72 all keyed into the program, i get a file with a size of around 6mb

Now if i don't input any of these restrictions and just output the file at its original dimensions at 300ppi (which is probably the highest) & then open the image in Preview (or a similar program), then resize & resample to the same as earlier - 3000px and 72ppi, the image is around 2mb

The maximum size this site will take is 1024 x1024. So, there is no point of exporting at 3000 since the uploader will reduce it anyway.
All the picture that I post here are resized 900 at the widest or longest at 72 dpi. This gives me a file of about 600-700 kb depending on what's on the picture.
​

 

[WhiteLight]

The maximum size this site will take is 1024 x1024. So, there is no point of exporting at 3000 since the uploader will reduce it anyway.
All the picture that I post here are resized 900 at the widest or longest at 72 dpi. This gives me a file of about 600-700 kb depending on what's on the picture.
​

Am actually in the process of getting a website up and running, so trying different options
Do you reckon files in the website gallery of 4mb would be OK? or would take waaay too long to load?

 

[Marcel]

The maximum size this site will take is 1024 x1024. So, there is no point of exporting at 3000 since the uploader will reduce it anyway.
All the picture that I post here are resized 900 at the widest or longest at 72 dpi. This gives me a file of about 600-700 kb depending on what's on the picture.
​

In the export dialog box there is a "add" button where you can create and save settings that you will use often.

Here's a pic that I just exported from LR

 

[Marcel]

In the export dialog box there is a "add" button where you can create and save settings that you will use often.

Here's a pic that I just exported from LR

View attachment 54401

​But I picked the wrong watermark...

 

[nickt]

I'm too tired to think tonight, lol... So I don't know if this even remotely applies to your question, but this article might be handy to you at some point if you are working on a website. It explains the various choices when you export in LR. Resizing Images in Lightroom 5 (LR5)

 

[Browncoat]

LR's export dialog can do everything you need. If you're looking to "optimize images for website viewing", I would suggest a Google search for that very subject...but you're going to find very different schools of thought. Here's my perspective:

1) File size is a juggling act. You don't want images to take forever to load, but you want them to be high quality and large enough for people to see, but small enough to deter image theft. In my opinion, 800x600 @ 72 ppi still fits the bill. That's small by today's widescreen standard, but it's better to be a wee bit small than to have people leave your site in frustration because they're tired of waiting on images to load.

2) Watermark your stuff. Forget the notion of watermarks as a theft deterrent, because that's hogwash. If someone wants to steal your work, they're going to steal it regardless. 5 minutes of Photoshop will make short work of any watermark. Use them to promote yourself. Encourage sharing on your site thru Facebook, G+, and even Pinterest. With a watermark, at least your name is on it.

Personally, the images I upload on my site are typically 680 pixels on the long edge. 680 pixels is the width of my blog space, and this way I don't have to upload multiple versions of the same photo if I choose to include it in my portfolio as well.

 

[Geoffc]

I set the longest edge and file size in MB if I'm after something specific. For example I tend to use 1500 pixels longest edge and 500KB for Facebook. LR does a fantastic job at producing great quality output when you constrain sizes. So good in fact that I had to double check the output the first time I used it.

As for ppi, I'm not going to get into yet another debate on it, but it basically has no effect on the output file size or quality once you've specified the dimensions. Play with the value yourself and note the different output results when changing from 1ppi to 1000ppi. Each file will be the same size and dimensions.

 

[BackdoorArts]

It's been fairly well covered already, but I'll chime in and say that I have a set of export presets for each of the sites I load to, each with their own settings for resolution and longest edge length. Makes it a lot easier.

As for file size on a website, we're in an age where we have to assume people are on some form of high speed internet, but to some that still means less than 1 Mbps, so you have to think about who your audience will be. 2-4 MB photos aren't bad if you're not loading up a page of them. Some sites will preload all large images and fake a thumbnail (i.e. display the full res image at a smaller size) which will kill your initial load, so make sure that either you or the site produces actual thumbnails (if you do it yourself you can preserve the copyright info that may get stripped if the site resizes).

 

[WhiteLight]

As for ppi, I'm not going to get into yet another debate on it, but it basically has no effect on the output file size or quality once you've specified the dimensions. Play with the value yourself and note the different output results when changing from 1ppi to 1000ppi. Each file will be the same size and dimensions.

That's right! Came as a surprise, but the file size remains the same for all values of ppi

 

[Geoffc]

That's right! Came as a surprise, but the file size remains the same for all values of ppi

Yes it's a funny thing because the file size in bytes = pixels W x pixels H, plus a few tags to describe the file. PPI is nothing more than one of those tags. That's why I always smile when a fuss is made of the ppi / dpi settings.

 

[WhiteLight]

I've also found that reducing the image quality slider between 70-80 does not really affect the quality of the image but it does reduce the file size considerably..

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Browncoat]

As for ppi, I'm not going to get into yet another debate on it, but it basically has no effect on the output file size or quality once you've specified the dimensions. Play with the value yourself and note the different output results when changing from 1ppi to 1000ppi. Each file will be the same size and dimensions.

There's a ppi debate? I thought it was common knowledge that ppi/dpi is for print resolution only, and has nothing to do with file size or how images appear on a screen. For example, and the sake of simple math:

Image size: 500x500 pixels
@ 500 ppi/dpi the printed image on a piece of paper would be 1 inch x 1 inch
@ the more common 240 "hi-res" ppi/dpi, the same image would print out to be around 2x2
File size doesn't change with either setting

​

 

[WhiteLight]

The only 'safeguard' would be an image at 72ppi would be very difficult to print to desired sizes

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Geoffc]

The only 'safeguard' would be an image at 72ppi would be very difficult to print to desired sizes

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk 2

You can change the ppi back to something else in Lightroom or other editing programs. It protects nothing. The only way to make something too small to print is to ensure the pixel dimensions are too small.

 

[WhiteLight]

You can change the ppi back to something else in Lightroom or other editing programs. It protects nothing. The only way to make something too small to print is to ensure the pixel dimensions are too small.

So you saying that if I export at 72ppi jpg and upload to a website, anyone can download it and change it to 300 ppi and print it large size??

That would basically throw the minimal 'security' for the images out of the window!

I was thinking of exporting at 2000 px on the longer edge at 72 ppi at 80% quality..
2000px is quite large relatively, so someone can easily download covert to any other desired ppi and print??

 

[BackdoorArts]

They can bring it back up but there will be a loss in resolution, some of which would be correctable through the tools provided by PhotoShop and Lightroom.

 

[Geoffc]

So you saying that if I export at 72ppi jpg and upload to a website, anyone can download it and change it to 300 ppi and print it large size??

That would basically throw the minimal 'security' for the images out of the window!

I was thinking of exporting at 2000 px on the longer edge at 72 ppi at 80% quality..
2000px is quite large relatively, so someone can easily download covert to any other desired ppi and print??

If you export an image at 2000px wide you could print it at 6.6 inches wide, which is 300dpi. 300dpi would be regarded as high quality. The thing controlling it is the pixels wide divided by the dpi you are prepared to accept. If you're good with 200dpi which is not exactly terrible you can print it 10 inches wide. If you printed at 72dpi which is rubbish you would have an image 27 inches wide. It's a bit like giving someone a 500bhp car and saying it can only do 30mph because we have speed limit signs up.

With regards to printing a picture, I normally just select the option to fill an A4 sheet and the printer does not care less about dpi.