Light Stalking

Anyone got any tips on this? I convert them to jpg for Flickr.

My shots in RAW looks so much crisper, but when I send them through the Export to JPG function in LightRoom they lose a noticeable amount of detail.

Anyone got any pointers?

I export from Lightroom and Sharpen in PS. I have used the Unsharp Mask in the Lab Mode(found at Digital Photography Connection http://www.thedigitalphotographyconnection.com ) More recently I’ll just use the Smart Sharpen in PS.

Sharpening doesn’t add detail; only a perception of increased sharpness by increasing the contrast around the edges.
The detail from RAW to jpeg is lost in a number of ways and you can minimise this a bit.
Check your settings for the conversion. Make sure you are producing a significantly high dpi resolution for printing (300 is good) and realise you have thrown out a good deal of the washing during the rinse. Get yourself a HR monitor for about $4000 and a top printer for about $2000. This will ensure your screen gives you the best look (most screens are about 72dpi) and prints are as detailed as possible for the budget.
I have to add one more thing ofr myself: clean my glasses.

Hmmm… any tips that won’t cost me my first born’s inheritance? ;)

Hahaha, I always look for the free alternative :p!

I use a software called “Raw Therapee” for RAW batch processing, that includes an unsharp mask ( like says @drec ) with some configurable parameters.

I like it! I’ve never noticed a lost of detail. But I’ve never previewed a RAW at full size either.

I don’t know anything about image formats, but I thought that RAW format had more information about colours, but the same number of pixels, so I thought that a – good – unsharpen processing could restore a bit the detail (making different similar coloured pixels if they are in edges).

But… “I only know that I don’t know anything” :p!

Sharpness and detail are 2 different things. Sharpness is originally a factor of the focus and the ability for the lens to produce an image on the sensor and the ability of the sensor to record it. A blurry image can still have maximum detail recorded. The number of pixels and the size of the pixels is the next factor to consider.
Raw files keep all the information therefore have all the detail you need but if you took the photo with the bottom of a coke bottle as a lens the sharpness will be somewhat lacking. Then if you display your images on a screen with 72dpi compared to 200 dpi it will look different each time. Then there is the subject of colour. Using sRGB or Adobe RGB will make a difference. So will your monitor and your printer. But with all this in mind, no amount of fiddling with your sharp masks or anything else for that matter will return detail to your image once it is gone during the conversion, That’s why you keep your digital negs (RAW). So you can go back and do it again after you’ve stuffed it all up.
Even adding pixels or increasing sharpness is only a guessing process by the software. Intelligent as it may seem, the software is only guessing what to do based on what you tell it and what it’s immediate environment is, ie the pixels that are in its immediate vicinity. Sure, you might increase the number of pixels but the new ones will not be like the original; just close.
So what’s the solution?
Easy. Start with RAW. Make your conversion to 300dpi 8 bit sRGB or Adobe RGB depending on which fence you are looking over (I use Adobe but that’s because I do all my own printing) If you use your local generic printer or display on the internet, sRGB is probably better.) Do all your fiddling and farting around. Sharpen last if you think you need to and display using the best product (screen, printer, paper etc).
Finally, if detail is what you really want in an image you are probably in the wrong game. Work on the composition first. When you get that right no-one will notice if you are using 50MP sensor with a Carl Zeiss 50mm and display it on a 200dpi screen. And if all they can say is ‘Nice detail’ youve missed the point.

When I convert RAW (NEF in Nikon) file to JPG using Lightroom, I lose too much information, I obtain a better result if I use native Nikon software (a cd into my purchased pack of my D3000), with this, the conversion RAW to JPG is really more accurate, for me.

Hmmm – I might have to take another look at my nikon software.

@tomdinning – wanna write a tutorial on converting for the web for the main site? ;) (just thought i’d try – lol)

One of the reasons detail, sharpness and quality is lost when converting or exporting from RAW to any other format (except TIFF), is that most other formats decreases the BIT Depth to 8, where RAW can be anything from 12bit to 16bit. EXR is another format that can be up to 32bit. As you would imagine converting down will introduce artefacts if care isn’t taken when adjusting things, no matter what software is used.
Being a Linux (Debian) devotee, I too prefer RAW Therapee.

I have to agree with @tomdinning. Although this is all assuming you have a clear photograph to start. I find the detail tab in lightroom is good enough control! One additional thought is I wouldn’t worry too much about how sharp they appear on the web unless they are completely without focus and shouldn’t be or your overall concept is lost. In the end what matters is how the print looks if someone wants it for themselves!

I actually toy with the idea of writing a heap of stuff devoted solely to free and open source photography that 100% embraces creative commons – from shooting all the way through to post production and even the business end of it. I don’t know that there would be a market for such info or a website though.

I’d like to see a post on it Rob!