Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Exporting photo without losing quality/ focus
- Thread starter katbel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By “reducing size,” do you mean physical size (number of pixels) or file size? And do you mean public viewing of a digital image on a screen, or a printed version?
Pixel number and public viewing on a screen, not printed.
I want to share a photo at its best but without giving away the full photo to anyone if I choose not .
I think this depends in part on where you share it. Facebook, for example, does everything it can to shrink image sizes when they are uploaded. They strip metadata, including photographer name and copyright status (thanks, FB!) and compress the living daylights out of images. So photos there always seem kind of flat and "dull," as you said. So on that platform, there's little you can do. You CAN disable image downloading on FB, but your images don't tend to look good there in the first place, so your photo won't look its best anyway.
Some platforms, like Squarespace, allow you to block right-click downloads and "copy image address." But even in those cases, if someone wants to take your image, they can screengrab it.
And of course you can throw watermarks all over it, which may prevent someone from wanting to steal it, though it leaves you with an image that isn't as nice looking as your original.
For real protection, all you can do is register your images with the copyright office. It leaves you with your strongest legal recourse if you find someone has infringed on your work.
I've noticed this website does the same if an image is uploaded directly. I usually store my images as full resolution jpegs in Apple Photos. When I upload an image to share here, I notice a good deal of compression and reduction of detail. I've read that many websites do this to save storage and band width.
Other than directly exporting an image into a small resolution (1600 pixels on the along edge), I don't know of any work around. I'd like to find a solution.
Other than directly exporting an image into a small resolution (1600 pixels on the along edge), I don't know of any work around. I'd like to find a solution.
What program are you using to export and what file type (jpg or png)? When exporting do you have your ICC profile saved/embedded to the file? I believe sRGB is still the standard for web viewing. Granted some browsers may have a larger color space and some of your audience may have a larger color space monitor but generally I still believe the safe bet is sRGB
How is your monitor calibrated? Is it a large color space monitor?
I'm going to disagree with the sentiment that placing a tastefully done watermark distracts from the image at all. Good composition is seen whether there's a watermark or not. I am also going to disagree that registering is the strongest legal recourse. Maybe semantics but the absolute best legal recourse due to some rulings is that a registered image (with the © office) And a watermark gives the strongest legal recourse. Plus if you show they removed the watermark © symbol don't you have an even larger legal recoup?
Of course understanding that you will pony up the money to take on someone in court should you catch the unauthorized use(document it) then endure the legal battle. Bringing me back to my theory it's best to watermark so the Corporations don't want to use it without asking for a usable version in the first place. I swear I've seen friend's sunset/cherry blossom pics on Walmart ads in Facebook yet they would never know as the pic (in the ad) is dynamic always changing
Last edited:
no one has really answered your question. try reading this. i think it’s what you are looking for.
clickitupanotch.com
EXACT Lightroom Export Settings Every Photographer Should Know | Click it Up a Notch®
These are the EXACT Lightroom export settings professional photographers use to export for web, print, Facebook, Instagram & clients.
Something to realize about watermarks, too, is that they can be removed fairly easily by someone who is determined and who knows how to skillfully do it.
As for the instructions on exporting from Lightroom, that's useful for those who use Lightroom, but not everyone does.... Each editing program seems to have its own particular protocols.
As for the instructions on exporting from Lightroom, that's useful for those who use Lightroom, but not everyone does.... Each editing program seems to have its own particular protocols.
I don't have Lightroom but I could try to compare and use some of the settings elsewhere.
I already gave up to watermarks for the same reasons mentioned in this thread. I use Affinity Photos, RawPower and Photos to export. Anyone using those?
I already gave up to watermarks for the same reasons mentioned in this thread. I use Affinity Photos, RawPower and Photos to export. Anyone using those?
Reducing the resolution of any bitmap image will always result in a lesser quality image. It is as simple as that: removing pixels removes details from an image. This is reality.
That said, there are a couple of guidelines that work in any image editor to maintain an acceptable quality as long as the reduction in resolution is not too extreme (scaling down ten times is going to affect the image details, no matter what of course).
Generic step-by-step guide:
Depending on the content (again) and the number of colours used, indexed or reduced colour palette export to PNG may be a solution. Or test webp at a higher quality, which tends to favour quality in smaller resolution images much better than jpg is able to achieve at smaller file sizes.
Unfortunately Affinity Photo still does not export to webp (which is just ridiculous in my opinion). So you would have to rely on other tools to do so.
The other thing that can be really useful is a real-time side-by-side web export preview. Unfortunately (again) Affinity Photo does feature such a preview option (which again is ridiculous in my opinion). PhotoLine, Photoshop, and other image editors do allow for this, and I tend to zoom in 200% while changing the export settings to check what the final quality would be.
This final step is not possible in Affinity Photo, however - and it kinda essential to have if we are interested in comparing quality with export settings. It is more trial and error in Affinity, and just takes too much time and effort.
Finally, you mention "dull" looking images. This may be due to colour shifiting caused by a broken colour management workflow. Check the original with the exported version and if there is a clear colour shift, you may have to test your colour management workflow.
A quick fix would be to use the Vibrance and curves adjustments in Affinity Photo to create a better looking version after exporting. Not the best way to go about it, though.
Addendum: IF your final downsized image renders with noticeable moire artifacts/patterns, the trick to remove these is to actually BLUR the original image a tad, and then perform the scale down operation. Afterwards the smaller image may still be sharpened, of course.
That said, there are a couple of guidelines that work in any image editor to maintain an acceptable quality as long as the reduction in resolution is not too extreme (scaling down ten times is going to affect the image details, no matter what of course).
Generic step-by-step guide:
- before scaling down an image, sharpen it. Perhaps even overdo the sharpening: when it is scaled down to a much lower resolution version, this will at least visually preserve some details a bit better.
Be careful though: it depends on the type of image whether this pre-sharpening step will have a negative or positive impact. For example, I noticed a reduction in anti-aliasing quality along the edges for sharp-edged hand drawn illustrations. Photos generally do benefit from this first step. Test, test, test. It depends on the content and intent of each image. - scale down. The selected resampling algorithm may have an impact on preserving visual detail. For example, MitchellNetravali or CatmulRom are two of the better down-sampling algorithms, maintaining contrast around details better than for example bicubic.
Most image editors do not support these, however. PhotoLine is the only mainstream image editor that supports both as well as cubic spline and lanczos; Krita supports Mitchell too. A reasonable alternative is Lanczos, which is also supported by Affinity Photo.
Read up on this topic here:
Resampling Filters -- IM v6 Examples
legacy.imagemagick.org
- after scaling down you may want to sharpen the image slightly (or a lot) depending on the content once more.
The sharpening algorithm may also have an impact on overall image quality, btw.
Again: test. - repeat steps with the same image using different sharpening and downsampling settings. Compare, and pick the one you like most.
- if content of the image differs greatly, repeat steps 1-4 once more to figure out the best settings.
Depending on the content (again) and the number of colours used, indexed or reduced colour palette export to PNG may be a solution. Or test webp at a higher quality, which tends to favour quality in smaller resolution images much better than jpg is able to achieve at smaller file sizes.
Unfortunately Affinity Photo still does not export to webp (which is just ridiculous in my opinion). So you would have to rely on other tools to do so.
The other thing that can be really useful is a real-time side-by-side web export preview. Unfortunately (again) Affinity Photo does feature such a preview option (which again is ridiculous in my opinion). PhotoLine, Photoshop, and other image editors do allow for this, and I tend to zoom in 200% while changing the export settings to check what the final quality would be.
This final step is not possible in Affinity Photo, however - and it kinda essential to have if we are interested in comparing quality with export settings. It is more trial and error in Affinity, and just takes too much time and effort.
Finally, you mention "dull" looking images. This may be due to colour shifiting caused by a broken colour management workflow. Check the original with the exported version and if there is a clear colour shift, you may have to test your colour management workflow.
A quick fix would be to use the Vibrance and curves adjustments in Affinity Photo to create a better looking version after exporting. Not the best way to go about it, though.
Addendum: IF your final downsized image renders with noticeable moire artifacts/patterns, the trick to remove these is to actually BLUR the original image a tad, and then perform the scale down operation. Afterwards the smaller image may still be sharpened, of course.
Last edited:
Googling gives me almost all about Lightroom, but thanks anyway
I agree not sweating 🙂
I found a better export/settings using RawPower where I can choose DPI beside other settings and it makes the difference.
Thanks for such a detailed answer and good tips!Reducing the resolution of any bitmap image will always result in a lesser quality image. It is as simple as that: removing pixels removes details from an image. This is reality.
That said, there are a couple of guidelines that work in any image editor to maintain an acceptable quality as long as the reduction in resolution is not too extreme (scaling down ten times is going to affect the image details, no matter what of course).
Generic step-by-step guide:
Saving your work may have a dramatic negative impact on image quality. JPG absolutely destroys sharp edged artwork or details at any setting lower than 90~92, because it is a lossy format. PNG is non-lossy and retain the exact pixel information, albeit at a much increased file size.
- before scaling down an image, sharpen it. Perhaps even overdo the sharpening: when it is scaled down to a much lower resolution version, this will at least visually preserve some details a bit better.
Be careful though: it depends on the type of image whether this pre-sharpening step will have a negative or positive impact. For example, I noticed a reduction in anti-aliasing quality along the edges for sharp-edged hand drawn illustrations. Photos generally do benefit from this first step. Test, test, test. It depends on the content and intent of each image.- scale down. The selected resampling algorithm may have an impact on preserving visual detail. For example, MitchellNetravali or CatmulRom are two of the better down-sampling algorithms, maintaining contrast around details better than for example bicubic.
Most image editors do not support these, however. PhotoLine is the only mainstream image editor that supports both as well as cubic spline and lanczos; Krita supports Mitchell too. A reasonable alternative is Lanczos, which is also supported by Affinity Photo.
Read up on this topic here:
Resampling Filters -- IM v6 Examples
- after scaling down you may want to sharpen the image slightly (or a lot) depending on the content once more.
The sharpening algorithm may also have an impact on overall image quality, btw.
Again: test.- repeat steps with the same image using different sharpening and downsampling settings. Compare, and pick the one you like most.
- if content of the image differs greatly, repeat steps 1-4 once more to figure out the best settings.
Depending on the content (again) and the number of colours used, indexed or reduced colour palette export to PNG may be a solution. Or test webp at a higher quality, which tends to favour quality in smaller resolution images much better than jpg is able to achieve at smaller file sizes.
Unfortunately Affinity Photo still does not export to webp (which is just ridiculous in my opinion). So you would have to rely on other tools to do so.
The other thing that can be really useful is a real-time side-by-side web export preview. Unfortunately (again) Affinity Photo does feature such a preview option (which again is ridiculous in my opinion). PhotoLine, Photoshop, and other image editors do allow for this, and I tend to zoom in 200% while changing the export settings to check what the final quality would be.
This final step is not possible in Affinity Photo, however - and it kinda essential to have if we are interested in comparing quality with export settings. It is more trial and error in Affinity, and just takes too much time and effort.
Finally, you mention "dull" looking images. This may be due to colour shifiting caused by a broken colour management workflow. Check the original with the exported version and if there is a clear colour shift, you may have to test your colour management workflow.
A quick fix would be to use the Vibrance and curves adjustments in Affinity Photo to create a better looking version after exporting. Not the best way to go about it, though.
I tried with several apps but so far Raw Power is giving me the best results , even if it works better from the app itself but not from the exporting extension in Photos. Not enough settings available , including the DPI
I agree that Affinity Photo should consider the web exporting
Sorry, but this is completely, legally unfactual.
Here's the reality. Under U.S. law, the act of creating an image by pressing the shutter button on a camera is a legal act as well as a creative one. Press the button and you have created a copyrighted work. Adding a © symbol changes nothing legally, aside from telling everyone that the work is copyrighted. Which it is already.
The protection afforded through copyright registration is purely one of legal recourse. As there is no legal defense for using an infringed work that the creator has taken the steps to protect, the claims against such use are much higher. So if someone uses a work that a photographer has registered, the claims - per infringement - can go from $30,000 to $150,000.
By not registering, it is easier to make a claim that the photographer was not interested in protecting their works. The courts have stated such, time and again. Often the cases are stopped with a complete settlement in the photographer's favor, once the infringer has been notified that the work was registered.
Just a tip regarding DPI/PPI (they are not the same!): DPI or PPI means absolutely nothing in terms of resolution. We can save 1 pixel at a million PPI and the resolution stays the same: 1 pixel. Likewise, we can save a million by a million pixels at 1PPI.
In short, DPI/PPI is only meta data assigned to an image how its print size should be interpreted during printing.
The only viable approach to set resolution for screen design is to work with the actual pixel resolution (although it gets a bit more complicated nowadays due to retina screens). For print work we need to know the actual physical size it should be printed at and at what distance it will be viewed - which decides the PPI value that is required.
But DPI/PPI by itself is useless as a method to decide the required resolution.
Also: for screen design PPI/DPI is irrelevant. A browser doesn't care about the PPI meta data in an image.
It changes if it's shown that the infringement purposely removed the symbol - that was my only point. I never said that the symbol supersedes registering the image(s) in the first place. I said in 'conjunction' with it being registered. There are recent rulings stating this very thought that without any type of warnings/watermark the photographer must not of been interested in protecting - as you stated.
Yes there are cases of registered work being infringed upon, google the famous one Univ. of Houston vs photographer. You could say the court ruled the government can't infringe but had those images(from the web) had watermarks would they have been used without trying to get permission/license up front therefore removing the need for the lawyer costs in the first place - sure a hypothetical what if after the fact ???)
Clic Pix states it's easy to remove the watermark - for us who've taken the time to learn this software not true for others I just removed a twig from a subject took me a minute the person asking for the work done wouldn't of had clue what tools I used nor did they have the software on their computer. Work like that and the Marketer might have had to ask their Creative Department to do the work another step where someone would have said no.
Curious have you ever actually been in involved in an actual copyright court case? I have and even if you win you never win going to court. Your black and white numbers and clear cut assumptions never happen in the real world until months of back and forth pain. If I can put a bit of effort to prevent then I'm good with that.
Back to the OP: In Affinity when you export generally jpg is better for photos png for graphics
Go to the bottom of the dialog box and click 'more' then make sure you are embedding your ICC profile and generally for web use sRGB is what you want selected. WebP might be googles latest file format but it still is not supported on 100% of platforms - jpg is still the safest for web viewing until it's clear its the de facto web format, if you care about all browsers. I do question if Herbert's advice on sharpening prior to reduction is best practice for photos vs for graphics with hard lines verses sharping after the reduction has taken place. In any case sharpness is not color and my 'guess' until you tell us what color space you are editing in, how your monitor is set up and your settings for export I can only assume the shift is because you are seeing two different color space settings.
That is why I mentioned it is entirely context dependent.
Even the art style and type of downsampling algorithm will have an impact. Often barely discernible, yet sometimes the final result suffers from horrible anti-aliasing along sharp edged artwork.It is impossible to say without knowing the content and having experienced these cases before.
With WebP another factor that affects conversion is whether RGB->YUV is used or not. I found that for hand-drawn artwork this may have an impact on colour conversion along edges as well.
At this point in time more than 97% of users browsing the web are able to view WebP images. It is mainly IE 10&11 that are problematic - and those browsers should not be used due to security issues and lack of support.
Btw, WebP doesn't always win in comparison to JPG. The main advantage of WebP is its support for lossy compression and full alpha (transparency) support - something no other image format is able mirror.
Yes I have, and at my job I am of necessity well schooled in copyright. Have been for years. And at work we have attorneys whose bread and butter is copyright, and (thankfully) they are always there to answer questions, too.
What makes the biggest difference when it comes to the case not even making it to court? With the opposing counsel telling their client "just settle?" It's when the image is registered with the copyright office. No lawyer in their right mind will take up the case at that point.
Each case is different, of course. Your mileage may have been different. I hope it turned out well for you in the end, after all the hassle.
Agreed. And sadly enough, Adobe is coming up with smarter and better Photoshop tools with each new version, tools that make "healing" the watermark right out of an image easier and easier. Frightening.
From the Affinity Photo Article:
There are other issues with the information in that article. It's fine for learning about where to locate the options in Affinity and its general workflow, but Oh So Wrong otherwise.
That generalized statement is so wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin tearing it down.
Again a statement without any clue as to how images in responsive web layout code work. This is WAAAY too vague and not based on good practices on dealing with web imagery.
One more vague and incorrect statement.
There are other issues with the information in that article. It's fine for learning about where to locate the options in Affinity and its general workflow, but Oh So Wrong otherwise.
Caesium Image Compressor - "Compress your pictures up to 90% without visible quality loss"
https://saerasoft.com/caesium
https://saerasoft.com/caesium
I am glad someone asked this question…
My problem is related to loading images to this forum (others as well).
Great quality (to my eyes at least) in Apple Photos.
Choose photo to upload and as soon as it appears on the forum it visibly changes. I am not a pro photographer but I deal with colour in my work daily and it frustrates me no end.
So what would people suggest is the best way to get a reasonable pic following this route:
RAW in Photos >>> MacRumours Forum…
My problem is related to loading images to this forum (others as well).
Great quality (to my eyes at least) in Apple Photos.
Choose photo to upload and as soon as it appears on the forum it visibly changes. I am not a pro photographer but I deal with colour in my work daily and it frustrates me no end.
So what would people suggest is the best way to get a reasonable pic following this route:
RAW in Photos >>> MacRumours Forum…