What tool produces better quality jpeg: Lightroom or Imagemagick?

Question

I'm using Lightroom for photo workflow. At the end of it, I would like to have the best JPEG I can get, basically two options to choose from: - export from Lightroom to JPEG, using the 100% Lightroom quality - export from Lightroom to TIFF and converting to JPEG with ImageMagick

I know that neither 100% is really 100%, nevertheless, I'd like to choose the better options, which one is closer to the original file. Have someone measured the difference between the two? I've seen a thread about how to compare the difference, but never seen reasonable measurements.

Update: I'm shooting in RAW, using DNG, exporting different sizes. The question is: what tool produces better quality JPEG: Lightroom or ImageMagick?

Answer 1

I have both, so I ran a quick test for you.

Firstly, here's the original DNG. It's a snap of mine, converted from Nikon NEF by Ligtroom, no editing.

I then exported it with Ligtroom, same size, no sharpening, 100% JPEG quality, and no edits.

(You can download it from here for pixel-peeping)

Then I converted the DNG through ImageMagick. Again, no edits, 100% quality:

(Here's the downloadable location)

You be the judge which gives the better export. However, note the following:

• The Lightroom version has been modified. Not only is the exposure different, but it's very slightly warped relative to the ImageMagick version. I think there might be some lens correction going on. If there is, I can't find it; all my "Develop" settings are at default.
• The DNG is 8.6MB. Ligtroom's JPEG is 7.3MB: not a very significant compression, but that's what you get at 100% quality. Imagemagick gave me a 14.2MB file.

Here's my take-away from this experiment: It doesn't matter.

• You're going to want to edit your photos. Your image editing will probably affect your results more than your choice of JPEG conversion tool ever will.
• You'll want to increase your JPEG compression by reducing the quality setting. Otherwise, you'll get files with barely any compression at all; at that rate, why not go TIFF or PNG? By increasing the compression, you're going to lose quality, and it will probably be more significant than the mere choice of tool.
  • This is especially significant with ImageMagick giving the wacky larger results than the DNG; it blows that option out of the water.
• How big of a deal are the quality differences anyway? You'll have to really pixel peep at full size to see any changes. If you get obvious visual differences (like my exposure shift), the differences due to conversion will be insignificant.

Answer 2

I've created analytical measures of a single photo. My conclusion is: you can get better quality with Lightroom->TIFF->ImageMagick->JPEG, but the file size is much larger and the difference does not seem to worth it. As for myself, I'll use direct Lightroom->JPEG.

Please note, that this isn't the same comparison that as Craig has done. He had compared the DNG's two rendering settings that have no connection with the JPEG conversion and compression. For further reading, this pdf describes same of the DNG internals that one shall be aware of. You should check the chapter "The Raw processor" starting at page 15.

Answer 3

if you are shooting in jpg then that's the most you can get, don't mess reconverting it. Otherwise store them in dng not in jpg, then suit your jpg compression for particual uses, like for web, Big, Normal, Small jpgs.

The algorithm is important but the source is more important. So in dng you can be sure you'll get the best of any jpg export.

Answer 4

Assuming that the parameters on both of the files are the same (i.e. highest quality) and you aren't up-scaling or down-scaling the the photographs, the resulting output should be effectively exactly for both problems. Now that is not to say that if you did a diff on the files they would be the same, but from the standpoint of the image quality and eye appeal you shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

That said though, if you are up-scaling or down-scaling the photographs and doing other manipulations to then you will tend to see differences because programs tend to use slightly different (or significantly different if they have a patent!) algorithms for the scaling and other operations that you do to a photograph. However, at this point I would argue that you should go with the software that you find works best for your workflow and who's output has the best eye appeal for what you are doing. If you need precise reproduction of something you are going to have to limit any manipulations you do in which case we return to the point about the JPEG output being effectively the same.