First attempt at a portrait

[xpatUSA]

Actually, yes I always shoot raw and convert to jpeg. I should probably learn to convert to TIFF.

Perhaps. What camera and what converter?

[DanK]

Actually, yes I always shoot raw and convert to jpeg. I should probably learn to convert to TIFF.

Why? TIFF is better for some purposes but useless for others.

If you are going to post on the web, the final file has to be JPEG.

If you are going to have a lab print for you, the labs I'm familiar with require JPEGs.

If you are going to print yourself from Lightroom, you shouldn't export at all. Lightroom will print directly from the (raw+edits).

If you are going to print yourself from Photoshop or a program like it, you print from within the program and don't have to save a new file. In the case of Photoshop, the file format used by the program can be either TIFF or PSD (excepting very large files).

I use TIFF files a lot, but only for two purposes:

1. Photoshop. Photoshop functions identically regardless of whether you store as PSD or TIFF, but I use TIFF because it's a universally recognized format.

2. Transferring between some software programs. For example, Zerene, the software program I use for stacking, can't read raw files. To sent files to it, I export from Lightroom as 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhoto to avoid the loss of information that would occur with JPEGs. I also save the Zerene output files as 16-bit TIFFs and import them into Lightroom. From there, I either edit in LR or export to Photoshop, where the file stays in TIFF format. But if I want to show the files here, I have to export them as JPEGs.

Some software does #2 automatically. For example, if you open a Nik filter in Lightroom, Nik will save the results as a TIFF file.

[xpatUSA]

If you are going to post on the web, the final file has to be JPEG.

The final file can also be PNG or GIF or WEBP but not all apps can open Google's WEBP.

Jack, you can think of PNG as a postable TIFF. Big file, but no JPEG artifacts and not an Adobe-for-everything product.

GIF for an animated image sequence, small file but limited colors if I recall correctly.

WEBP is Google's attempt to take over the internet, succeeding about as well as JPEG2000.

[DanK]

The final file can also be PNG

Doesn't that depend on the site? Smugmug does accept PNG and GIF, but to all website? I honestly don't know.

I doubt that there is any advantage to posting a PNG rather than a high-quality JPEG for most web viewing.

[jkshyt]

Why? TIFF is better for some purposes but useless for others.

If you are going to post on the web, the final file has to be JPEG.

If you are going to have a lab print for you, the labs I'm familiar with require JPEGs.

If you are going to print yourself from Lightroom, you shouldn't export at all. Lightroom will print directly from the (raw+edits).

If you are going to print yourself from Photoshop or a program like it, you print from within the program and don't have to save a new file. In the case of Photoshop, the file format used by the program can be either TIFF or PSD (excepting very large files).

I use TIFF files a lot, but only for two purposes:

1. Photoshop. Photoshop functions identically regardless of whether you store as PSD or TIFF, but I use TIFF because it's a universally recognized format.

2. Transferring between some software programs. For example, Zerene, the software program I use for stacking, can't read raw files. To sent files to it, I export from Lightroom as 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhoto to avoid the loss of information that would occur with JPEGs. I also save the Zerene output files as 16-bit TIFFs and import them into Lightroom. From there, I either edit in LR or export to Photoshop, where the file stays in TIFF format. But if I want to show the files here, I have to export them as JPEGs.

Some software does #2 automatically. For example, if you open a Nik filter in Lightroom, Nik will save the results as a TIFF file.

I'm new to this. My understanding was that TIFF files were better, uncompressed and lossless.

[jkshyt]

Perhaps. What camera and what converter?

Sony a7iv and process in LR

[DanK]

I'm new to this. My understanding was that TIFF files were better, uncompressed and lossless.

Both are true, but the question is when it matters. It doesn't for displaying on the web. In fact, you can go quite a ways down in the LR quality settings before you'll see a visible difference in on-screen viewing. For empirical examples, check out http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality. Based on his examples, I typically export at 87, which corresponds to a photoshop 11, but even that is probably overkill. This is what led me to say that I doubt you'll see any difference between a high-quality JPEG and a PNG at the low resolution of most computer monitors.

Editing is something else entirely. In my view, best practice is to put off losing data as long as possible. That's why I edit in ProPhoto (Lightroom does something similar automatically) and use 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhoto to move among editing programs when I can't stay with a raw file. When you are editing, losing data early can cause problems, such as posterization.

[xpatUSA]

Doesn't that depend on the site? Smugmug does accept PNG and GIF, but to all website? I honestly don't know.

Sorry, I can't answer that because I don't know about "all websites" that can display images nor all sites like Smugmug, flickr, etc.

I doubt that there is any advantage to posting a PNG rather than a high-quality JPEG for most web viewing.

Well, if we are now only talking about "high quality" JPEGs, I am forced to agree. Indeed, the highest possible quality JPEG is RGB, not Y'CbCr and is not compressed much, if at all.

I'm talking about PNG being losslessly compressed and with no artifacts when viewed, unlike a JPEG with moderate compression and sub-sampled Chroma - as is more likely to be posted on-line.

I use PNG when quality is being discussed - especially detail or micro-contrast and I want zero JPEG artifacts in my posted image.

[xpatUSA]

Both are true, but the question is when it matters. It doesn't for displaying on the web ...

... unless the viewer zooms in to examine detail ...

In fact, you can go quite a ways down in the LR quality settings before you'll see a visible difference in on-screen viewing. For empirical examples, check out http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality. Based on his examples, I typically export at 87, which corresponds to a photoshop 11, but even that is probably overkill.

I agree. What you could do is find the lowest quality where the sub-sampling is 4:4:4 (1x1). That would be 9/12 in my Sigma converter.

...
Editing is something else entirely. In my view, best practice is to put off losing data as long as possible. That's why I edit in ProPhoto (Lightroom does something similar automatically) and use 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhoto to move among editing programs when I can't stay with a raw file.

Yes, I do the same for serious images going from raw to RawTherapee or the GIMP.

[pschlute]

Thank you all for the insightful comments. I have a much better understanding of what makes a successful portrait.
Below is a original image with no edits from raw to jpeg. 3 generations of woman captured in the park.
Please feel free to make any edits to the image as you see that would show the best outcome.
Thanks!
_A743404 by jk Sullivan, on Flickr

That is actually a charming group portrait, made even better with your description of the connection of generations. It does have some issues with colour balance and needing a little selective exposure adjustments, but that can be sorted easily.

The key to a good picture is what you start with, and I like this.

[xpatUSA]

Both are true, but the question is when it matters. It doesn't for displaying on the web. In fact, you can go quite a ways down in the LR quality settings before you'll see a visible difference in on-screen viewing. For empirical examples, check out http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality. Based on his examples, I typically export at 87, which corresponds to a photoshop 11, but even that is probably overkill. This is what led me to say that I doubt you'll see any difference between a high-quality JPEG and a PNG at the low resolution of most computer monitors.

Thanks for the link. I am unfamiliar with the Adobe software described but I did note: quote all bets are off when it comes to the JPEG quality setting on non-Adobe applications. They're just totally unrelated to how Adobe does it. unquote.

For the web, I use full chroma sub-sampling 2x2 (4:2:0) and 100% "quality", usually in FastStone Viewer or the GIMP.

Does Adobe allow a choice of chroma sub-sampling separately from quality?