Fuji JPEG editing do or don't?

[Ysarex]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

 

[stevo23]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Do you mean "interact with the compression grid inherited from the original"? Even then, you are really creating a brand new compression based on Adobe's export settings.

 

[Len-O]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

First, which version of LR are we talking about?

I was talking about Lightroom Classic CC.

Correct, with either version editing JPEGs in LR CC, or LR CCC is non-destructive.

With Lightroom Classic CC you have the ability to create a Virtual Copy, this ability does not exist in LR CC. Editing/adjusting this Virtual Copy does not alter or degrade the original JPEG, or RAF. This leaves the original files in the state in which they were imported, so the can be used for reference.

Regardless of the non-destructive nature of LR editing I prefer to leave original file in their imported state.

 

[Len-O]

Fuji Silkypix does RAF to TIFF conversion. (This is a little off topic, since the point here was that Fuji OOC JPG is a better starting point towards finished photo as opposed to RAF)

Then the best approach is to immediately save a 16-bit TIFF from the JPEG and work from there.

If you are using Lightroom or On1 Photo RAW you can work on a Virtual Copy of the JPEG, and export the result without any degradation from the original JPEG.

This is incorrect. The exported JPEG will show degradation due to interaction between the applied edits and the compression grid in the original JPEG.

If you say so.

If you want to edit a 16-bit image, there is nothing to be gained by converting the JPEG to TIFF, just work with the RAW.

 

[Ysarex]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Of course there is -- the edit changes interact with the original to create the export JPEG.

 

[stevo23]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

First, which version of LR are we talking about?

I was talking about Lightroom Classic CC.

Correct, with either version editing JPEGs in LR CC, or LR CCC is non-destructive.

With Lightroom Classic CC you have the ability to create a Virtual Copy, this ability does not exist in LR CC. Editing/adjusting this Virtual Copy does not alter or degrade the original JPEG, or RAF. This leaves the original files in the state in which they were imported, so the can be used for reference.

Regardless of the non-destructive nature of LR editing I prefer to leave original file in their imported state.

There is no change made to any original file by any version of Lightroom - full stop, period. Virtual Copy has nothing to do with it. You are ALWAYS leaving your original file in it's imported state when you use LR.

 

[Len-O]

If you are using Lightroom or On1 Photo RAW you can work on a Virtual Copy of the JPEG, and export the result without any degradation from the original JPEG.

This is incorrect. The exported JPEG will show degradation due to interaction between the applied edits and the compression grid in the original JPEG.

Thank you. Absolutely my understanding as well. Reason #1 to avoid iterative editing of JPG files... best to start with RAW.

My normal workflow is RAW. However, there are occasions I choose to edit/adjust the SOOC JPEGs. When I do that I will work on a Virtual copy and export to whatever file type I need for sharing via the export dialog. Any IQ degradation which might be imparted, is to my feeble eyeballs, imperceptible.

 

[stevo23]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Of course there is -- the edit changes interact with the original to create the export JPEG.

The original is Never touched by LR, only read. Interaction implies writing. It's only interacting with a copy of the original if at all. I suspect it's uncompressing, applying edits, then compressing upon export. Is that what you mean?

 

[Ysarex]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

First, which version of LR are we talking about?

All of them as well as any and all other editors.

I was talking about Lightroom Classic CC.

Correct, with either version editing JPEGs in LR CC, or LR CCC is non-destructive.

With Lightroom Classic CC you have the ability to create a Virtual Copy, this ability does not exist in LR CC. Editing/adjusting this Virtual Copy does not alter or degrade the original JPEG, or RAF. This leaves the original files in the state in which they were imported, so the can be used for reference.

Regardless of the non-destructive nature of LR editing I prefer to leave original file in their imported state.

You are referring to the fact that LR does not alter the original and in that sense it is non destructive of the original.

The issue in this thread is the damage that occurs to the image when a JPEG is edited. The output JPEG that you export from LR (not the original) will exhibit damage that is unique to the process of editing JPEGs. The changes you make to the image in LR will cause that damage and it will be evident in the exported JPEG.

Non-destructive as you are using it applies to the original and the way that all parametric editors handle editing. That's not what this thread is about. When LR applies the edit changes you make the degradation will take place to the export file.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Here's the clue - there is no "save" command for images in LR.

Look up "Lightroom non-destructive editing" and you'll find a spate of articles, some by Adobe. I'd share one, but there are so many that it's hard to know which to share.

When you work in Lightroom and do edits, it's showing you what the edits will do to that file and saving those settings. But no changes are made to the file itself no matter what file format you have. And LR is not the only one.

So back to Mr. Len-O - you don't have to make virtual copies to protect your jpegs. The typical reason people make virtual copies is to create several treatments of the same file and compare them.

Well, it could be “terminal denseness” on my part, but sorry, I still don’t get it. The input file is a JPG. Changes are made (for arguments sake, perhaps darkening a portion of the image), then the results ultimately have to be resaved as a JPG with the original file as the source. Since the output file is a JPG and it differs from the original, please explain to your rather slow Mod how these edits could be accomplished without having to physically change something within the original JPG first prior to the save. It’s the process of changing the original file and then resaving it (regardless how the edits are accomplished) that results in the degradation, since you are starting with an inherently lossy format.

Xsarex... help me here, bud. My technical knowledge of such things pales in comparison to yours. Perhaps you can dive in with a more credible and detailed explanation.

 

[Len-O]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

Here's the clue - there is no "save" command for images in LR.

Look up "Lightroom non-destructive editing" and you'll find a spate of articles, some by Adobe. I'd share one, but there are so many that it's hard to know which to share.

When you work in Lightroom and do edits, it's showing you what the edits will do to that file and saving those settings. But no changes are made to the file itself no matter what file format you have. And LR is not the only one.

So back to Mr. Len-O - you don't have to make virtual copies to protect your jpegs. The typical reason people make virtual copies is to create several treatments of the same file and compare them.

Exactly.

I find that it can be useful to have an SOOC JPEG as a reference for editing/adjusting a Virtual copy, be it RAW or JPEG.

 

[Ysarex]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Of course there is -- the edit changes interact with the original to create the export JPEG.

The original is Never touched by LR, only read.

Correct.

Interaction implies writing. It's only interacting with a copy of the original if at all.

It is interacting with the copy of the original if any edits are made -- there's no if at all there.

I suspect it's uncompressing, applying edits, then compressing upon export. Is that what you mean?

Yes. And if edits are applied those edits will cause degradation in the image which will be apparent in the exported file.

 

[stevo23]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

The edited Virtual Copy of the JPEG will exhibit further degradation due to the edit changes.

Virtual Copy doesn't create an actual copy of the file, only another LR preview. So there is nothing to degrade. It is another preview just like the one you look at in the original but with the different edits you've applied.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Of course there is -- the edit changes interact with the original to create the export JPEG.

The original is Never touched by LR, only read. Interaction implies writing. It's only interacting with a copy of the original if at all. I suspect it's uncompressing, applying edits, then compressing upon export. Is that what you mean?

Steve, JPG compression is lossy. Thus, decompressing, editing, and recompressing to the same lossy format by definition results in additional loss. When you decompress the JPG, you’re getting a slightly degraded version of the original. Editing and recompressing simply adds to that degradation... admittedly in small increments, but still there.

 

[Ysarex]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

The edited Virtual Copy of the JPEG will exhibit further degradation due to the edit changes.

Virtual Copy doesn't create an actual copy of the file, only another LR preview. So there is nothing to degrade. It is another preview just like the one you look at in the original but with the different edits you've applied.

The degradation will occur in the export file when you output a new JPEG.

 

[stevo23]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Of course there is -- the edit changes interact with the original to create the export JPEG.

The original is Never touched by LR, only read.

Correct.

Interaction implies writing. It's only interacting with a copy of the original if at all.

It is interacting with the copy of the original if any edits are made -- there's no if at all there.

Again, interaction means that LR has touched the original file. LR is only reading it, so not interacting with it. You're interacting with the new copy you've made.

Test: find a jpg in your library and lock it from your OS file system. Then open it in LR - you can do anything you want.

I suspect it's uncompressing, applying edits, then compressing upon export. Is that what you mean?

Yes. And if edits are applied those edits will cause degradation in the image which will be apparent in the exported file.

Not quite. It's compression that is mostly responsible for degradation. For instance, if you make no edits and decide to export with 50% compression, you will create degradation.

 

[Len-O]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

The edited Virtual Copy of the JPEG will exhibit further degradation due to the edit changes.

Virtual Copy doesn't create an actual copy of the file, only another LR preview. So there is nothing to degrade. It is another preview just like the one you look at in the original but with the different edits you've applied.

Correct.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

The edited Virtual Copy of the JPEG will exhibit further degradation due to the edit changes.

Virtual Copy doesn't create an actual copy of the file, only another LR preview. So there is nothing to degrade. It is another preview just like the one you look at in the original but with the different edits you've applied.

The degradation will occur in the export file when you output a new JPEG.

Correctamundo. Every iterative JPG save results in lossy recompression, which, if done repeatedly on each output file will cause continuing degradation of the image. That’s one really good reason, if you plan to work extensively on a file, to start with the RAW, where the changes are saved as a sidecar file and don’t impact the original. Each saved JPG is an original.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 

[Ysarex]

Hi all. This question has been bothering me lately. I shoot raw + jpeg but find it's so much easier getting the look I want wether B&W or COLOR by just editing the jpeg file I Lightroom. I honestly can't see any degradation of the file. Tweak the tone curve, adjust whites, blacks, exposure, reduce saturation, vignette or whatever. Probably the only thing I don't do is sharpen.

I know, why don't I just do the same to the raw file? Because it just takes a lot longer. A lot. And multiply by 100+ images and kiss your evening good bye.

So what do you think? Do you only edit raw? Or are you editing your jpegs? How much? Do you see degradation, if so how? Thanks a bunch!

I shoot RAW+JPEG and import both into LR. If I choose to edit/adjust the JPEG (with whichever film sim) I do so with a Virtual Copy in LR. When done I use the Export dialog for sharing. That avoids any additional resave and compression IQ loss/degradation. That way I still have the RAF and the unmolested JPEG along with the edited/adjusted Virtual Copy

Editing in LR is no destructive to jpeg. No? Not sure what you're referring to.

If what you’re editing is a JPG, is is, to my knowledge, most certainly destructive. Any editing of a lossy compressed format will result in progressive degradation of the image. That’s a good argument for starting with a RAW file which gives you a fresh JPG after each edit. That advice applies mostly to files that require a fair amount of iterative editing. Quick one-time edits for JPGs should be just fine.

Not Lightroom, it is a non destructive editor for any file. Photoshop is destructive to jpegs unless you use layers. Lightroom not.

Forgive my skepticism, but can you back that with a reference? It’s my understanding that ANY editing of a JPG (LR or otherwise) results in some level of degradation, but I’m happy to be educated here.

LR will not alter the original JPEG and is in that manner non-destructive of the original. However any edit changes will interact with the compression grid in the original JPEG and that will result in damage that will show up in the exported (edited) JPEG.

I don't quite know what you're saying. If you export a jpeg from a jpeg (using LR), you are first de-compressing it and then saving it with new compression and in that, there can be slight degradation. But given that it's only a second generation, it shouldn't be evident unless you use heavy compression. But I don't know what you mean by "interact with the compression grid in the original". There is no interaction with the original.

Of course there is -- the edit changes interact with the original to create the export JPEG.

The original is Never touched by LR, only read. Interaction implies writing. It's only interacting with a copy of the original if at all. I suspect it's uncompressing, applying edits, then compressing upon export. Is that what you mean?

Steve, JPG compression is lossy. Thus, decompressing, editing, and recompressing to the same lossy format by definition results in additional loss. When you decompress the JPG, you’re getting a slightly degraded version of the original. Editing and recompressing simply adds to that degradation... admittedly in small increments, but still there.

It is in fact much worse than that. The way JPEG works: The algorithm lays out an 8x8 pixel grid over the original image and then goes to work on the grid cells. Photo data is dense and in each grid cell it is likely that all 64 pixels are unique. JPEG's job is to leave the cell with only 32 or 24 or even 16 pixels unique. This is the compression grid. It is now part of the image and can't be extracted from the image.

When additional edits are made including edits made with a parametric editor like LR the open image compression grid interacts with the edit changes and very ugly things happen depending on how extreme the edits are. They will become part of the new output image.

 

[stevo23]

Here's the clue - there is no "save" command for images in LR.

Look up "Lightroom non-destructive editing" and you'll find a spate of articles, some by Adobe. I'd share one, but there are so many that it's hard to know which to share.

When you work in Lightroom and do edits, it's showing you what the edits will do to that file and saving those settings. But no changes are made to the file itself no matter what file format you have. And LR is not the only one.

So back to Mr. Len-O - you don't have to make virtual copies to protect your jpegs. The typical reason people make virtual copies is to create several treatments of the same file and compare them.

Well, it could be “terminal denseness” on my part, but sorry, I still don’t get it. The input file is a JPG. Changes are made (for arguments sake, perhaps darkening a portion of the image), then the results ultimately have to be resaved as a JPG with the original file as the source. Since the output file is a JPG and it differs from the original, please explain to your rather slow Mod how these edits could be accomplished without having to physically change something within the original JPG first prior to the save.

I think what happens is that LR literally gives you a preview of your file and that is what you look at and what changes are applied to.

It’s the process of changing the original file and then resaving it (regardless how the edits are accomplished) that results in the degradation, since you are starting with an inherently lossy format.

But no changes are made to your original file - ever. You never re-save it in Lightroom, there is no save command. Here is how you can convince yourself - drop a brand new jpeg into your folder. Lock it from your OS file system. It can't be touched - only read. Now open in LR and import that new file (however you do it). Lightroom will let you play on it all day long and it will never be touched.

Xsarex... help me here, bud. My technical knowledge of such things pales in comparison to yours. Perhaps you can dive in with a more credible and detailed explanation.