What you should disclose is you're using the wrong colorspace. That's why the image looks different, the first, in the thumbnail, rather than opened later. You should revisit your LR Export workflow and assure you've created a User Preset that encodes (enforces) use of the sRGB colorspace into the output JPEG. Consider standardizing the resizing of the resulting image as discussed -- and screen captured -- in this post: Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

I know this isn't a controversial topic, but I want to give a plug to shooting raw, anyway. I came across some shots from 2016, using a Sony a6000. All the images are arw - Sony raw. I often wondered if the guy who decided on that "arw" extension just mixed up the letters, intending to write "raw."

The pictures were shot in a high contrast situation - dark inside but bright outside. Using Luminar, I was able to process the twenty-five I wanted. The example of before and after below is probably the worst of the bunch, but it turned out being usable.

One thing about looking at pictures of a senior picnic from seven years ago - not all of the people in the pictures are still with us.

I am a Lightroom Classic subscriber and use it at least monthly processing photos. Photography is my hobby not profession. I attended a workshop where Smart Photo Editor was quickly demonstrated. The cost (best recollection) was $29 for a stand alone and $49 to link with Lightroom.

I’m wondering if anyone else on this forum uses Smart Photo Editor and what you think of it. The demo was awesome, but I’m wondering if it’s just another type of GAS. I seem to take a lot of photos that I never get back to process in Lightroom, I’m wondering if this might help address that issue.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Folks have gotten used to the quality of the latest jpegs which is pretty good.

But it is an irrefutable fact that you will NEVER know the ultimate image quality, most dynamic range, fullest color pallet, etc. that your camera's sensor and lens can capture if you NEVER shoot raw, just a fact folks. That is an irrefutable fact, no matter what you might believe.

I shoot raw +jpeg because beyond the convenience of SOOC jpegs to transfer quickly to media and share, I want the ultimate image quality that I paid for with my significant investment in top gear. I and my professional clients deserve no less than the best I can produce.

Cheers and bet to you all.

The storied z8 has finally come about and has everything we hoped it would but here is a question: How much difference does the stacked sensor make? I currently have a z7ii with the mpx. being the same as the z8 am wondering if upgrading would be worth it. Yes, the eye detection is better on the z8 with it being able to detect birds, and even airplanes vs. the 7 which only detects people, dogs, and cats. I do so little with birds, the eye detection alone is not worth the difference. So many of the great reviews really hit on the video capability of this camera and my video usage is 0 (zero). It looks like it has the best video capabilities of the big three with only Panasonic being a competitor in that area but again, I don't care about video. If a stacked sensor is a considerable improvement on the sensor in the z7ii, it will definitely be a factor in whether to upgrade or not. I was hoping the 8 would incorporate the 61 mpx. sensor Nikon has been testing to make it more competitive with Sony's 61 mpx. body. That would definitely be added to the equation. That also tells me that with them holding back on that sensor, to look for a new Nikon flagship to be in the works -- an upgraded z9 with improvements in eye detection and a 61 mpx. sensor -- call it a z1. My guess is that it would come in at around 6500.00 and would eventually eliminate the z9 from the lineup.

Yes, and that is the issue. "Whatever it needs to spit out" (I really love your choice of words because it really exposes the issue at hand.)

If you do not prepare your image BEFORE printing, you let the printer driver/profile do it for you. Not a great idea if you care about the final print. That is one of my points.

Printers do a decent job, if you control the pixel array BEFORE sending the image to the printer, you also control what the printer needs to do.

The dots printed are where they are supposed to be w/o modification, assuming the printer color space matches the image color space.

As stated: One needs to know what the final product is in order to achieve optimal printing result. This prevents the device used to do "Whatever it needs to spit out".

There is no argument as to the so-called physical size of a pixel, as it is a mathematic formula. The size issue enters only when using a device to display the image. In effect, the device used to view/print used is controlling the pixel array, giving it a physical size. When scanning, this is the reverse, a sensor array has a physical size and so does the individual sensor.

When you look at the image this way, the number of pixels to use when post-processing is determined by the device PPI/DPI array.

This reality is obfuscated by the mantra 'a pixel has no size'.