Support community for TTG plugins and products.
NOTICE
The Turning Gate's Community has moved to a new home, at https://discourse.theturninggate.net.
This forum is now closed, and exists here as a read-only archive.
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I'm using the Publisher within Backlight 2 to upload my galleries or albums to my website, not the Lightroom version. One album of 38 photographs has a total size of 12.1MB after exporting from Lightroom (with a quality value of 75). If I then upload it to my website with Backlight's Publisher and afterwards download it, its total size is 6.0 MB. Each photograph has been resized smaller. What's the logic involved here and how does it affect the appearance of the photographs on screen? Using JPEGmini to compress the photographs before uploading to the website actually produces slightly worse results.
Offline
I believe that Backlight publisher resizes to what’s specified in the album template
Rod
Just a user with way too much time on his hands.
www.rodbarbee.com
ttg-tips.com, Backlight 2/3 test site
Offline
Thanks, Rod, for pointing that out. My template setting is 69% (possibly the default on implementation; I can't be sure if I changed it or not but probably not). And that was set up two months ago, easy to forget. What is the equivalent Lightroom value? As Jeffrey Friedl pointed out:
"Adding to the confusion for Lightroom users is the fact that Lightroom's JPEG quality setting is unique: it's different from every other photo-processing app I know, including other Adobe products. “Quality 73” in Lightroom, for example, is not the same as “Quality 73” in Photoshop or any other app that I know of."
The same photographs exported from Lightroom at Quality = 55 still add up to 7.8 MB. Quality = 50 goes a bit weird and adds up to 7.99 MB. So, although the 69% I have set is affecting the results, something else is affecting the compression as well.
Offline
I don’t know if the Backlight publisher affects jpg quality, that’s something Matt or Ben can address.
Here’s something Matt wrote about Lightroom’s Joen Settings
http://ce4.theturninggate.net/2012/03/1 … -settings/
Rod
Just a user with way too much time on his hands.
www.rodbarbee.com
ttg-tips.com, Backlight 2/3 test site
Offline
I don’t know if the Backlight publisher affects jpg quality, that’s something Matt or Ben can address.
Here’s something Matt wrote about Lightroom’s Joen Settings
http://ce4.theturninggate.net/2012/03/1 … -settings/
I know. I read Matthew's posting last night which led me to Jeffrey Friedl's. I'll wait for Matthew's or Ben's response. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting; I just want to understand the underlying logic so that I can better apply it. I've spent the last few days looking at JPEGmini and other compression software and websites (Squoosh for example) in order to improve website loading speeds. Given the compression I'm seeing in the Backlight Publisher, are these even necessary?
Offline
The resizing is performed by completely different image engines between LR and Backlight, so the file sizes produced by the two will differ. That includes the way that each handles the JPEG quality setting.
Offline
The resizing is performed by completely different image engines between LR and Backlight, so the file sizes produced by the two will differ. That includes the way that each handles the JPEG quality setting.
Thanks, Ben. I guess then that it's not possible to define any equivalence; it's a matter of playing with the settings to see what results are achieved. As I said, I'm happy with the results I'm getting and probably will simply leave things as they are.
Offline
Yeah, equivalence is probably impossible. Lr does its own compression under-the-hood and uploads the resulting JPEGs directly to your site, and we're not privy to what goes on during that process. Backlight sizes images using -- and Ben may correct me if I am mistaken -- the GD Graphics Library that is usually available with standard-config Apache/PHP hosting packages.
Offline
Yeah, equivalence is probably impossible. Lr does its own compression under-the-hood and uploads the resulting JPEGs directly to your site, and we're not privy to what goes on during that process. Backlight sizes images using -- and Ben may correct me if I am mistaken -- the GD Graphics Library that is usually available with standard-config Apache/PHP hosting packages.
Thanks, Matthew. Another possibly unanswerable question for you and Ben: Since I have to export my photographs from Lightroom in order to publish them using the Backlight Publisher, is there any quality setting in Lightroom which is best suited for the sizing procedures used in the Backlight Publisher? 100%? 75%? Another? Using the Backlight Publisher involves using two lossy compression procedures, the Lightroom one followed by the Backlight Publisher one, so one should be careful here.
Offline
Regardless of the software being used, I typically export JPEGs at 2560-pixels on the long side, and 85% quality. I haven't done any research, but I haven't taken any issue with the results.
In general, I find that the pixels you start with, the better the down-sizing goes. Also, if you can cut your images by a clean 50%, you get better results. So exporting at 2560px works out nicely if your galleries are running images at 1280px.
Offline
Pages: 1