Export jpeg compression

Hi, whenever I save a picture to the camera roll the jpeg that gets saved is horribly compressed. If I send via email from within Touch then the picture is fine. Is there a particular reason why saving to the camera roll causes the extreme compression? It's a tad inconvenient to say the least!

I have the opposite question. I edit photos and want to send them to the camera roll. But an image of about 800x600 pixels produces a JPG of about 600 kB which is very big when you have a slideshow on the web of about 40 images. I would like to be able to adjust the quality of the JPG. Now I need a secondary app, like Photogene, to compress my JPGs. And that should not be necessary.

Similar Messages

  • Controlling level of JPEG compression when exporting from iPhoto 6?

    Hi all,
    I'm wondering whether one can adjust the level of JPEG compression when exporting images?
    I'm still on iPhoto 4 that unfortunately doesn't offer this option and by default produces fairly large images that aren't well suited for web presentations.
    I'd be happy to upgrade to iPhoto 6 for that feature alone.
    Cheers Martin

    HI Martin,
    There is no compression option in the File>export window. You can however input size dimensions so a 2592x1944 can be exported to any 4x3 value such as 800x600

  • LR JPEG compression vs. Photoshop JPEG compression

    I haven't found any documentation of the meaning of the 0 - 100% JPEG compression value in LR's (v1 or v2) Export File window. And the default value of 100% is overkill and results in huge files. At least I'm familiar with the Photoshop's 0-12 JPEG quality scale with associated quality names: Low, Medium, High, and Maximum.
    Via trial and error, I have found that LR has the same 13 quality levels as Photoshop and gives the same results, they are just mapped on a 0 - 100% scale. This also means that changing a few percent may not make any change at all, since a quality change only happens about every 7 percent.
    For those who might find it useful, here is a table of the mappings:
    The first column is the Photoshop compression number and name; the second column in the range of Lightroom percentages that will give the same results.
    0-Low 0-7%
    1-Low 8-15%
    2-Low 16-23%
    3-Low 24-30%
    4-Low 31-38%
    5-Med 39-46%
    6-Med 47-53%
    7-Med 54-61%
    8-High 62-69%
    9-High 70-76%
    10-Max 77-84%
    11-Max 85-91%
    12-Max 92-100%

    I looked at this again using PS's 'Baseline Standard' JPEG format option instead of 'Baseline Optimized. LR does not provide the format options Standard, Optimized, and Progressive, but appears to use 'Baseline Standard.' The equivalent compression level LR file size is within 16KB of PS's file size, which is probably due to slight differences in in the file metadata.
    This pretty much confirms LR and PS use the same 'Baseline Standard' JPEG compression algorithms. The PS level 7 reduced quality is also seen at LR's level 54-61 JPEG Quality setting. Jeffrey Friedel mentions this in his analysis of LR's JPEG Quality settings and a reply from Brian Tao:
    http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality
    Jeffrey Friedel's comment:
    One thing I find interesting (but don't understand) is that in the first example, the difference in file size between the  47〜53  quality and  54〜61  quality is considerable (49k to 66k bytes), while in the second example, the the same two levels of quality produces essentially the same file size. There seems to be some kind of switch in compression algorithm once Lightroom is at a quality setting of 54 or above that puts the emphasis on encoding the easily-discernible smooth gradients of the sunset example, and if they are lacking in the image, as with the reed-window-shade example, the attempt at extra quality fails, and the file size does not increase. That's my guess, but it's just a guess.
    Brian Tao's Reply:
    This is due to the downsampling (basically, a reduction in resolution) of one or more of the image channels before passing it to the actual compression routine.  Human vision is much more sensitive to changes in luminance (brightness) than chrominance (colour).  JPEG takes advantage of this by reducing the amount of colour information stored in the image in order to achieve higher compression ratios.  Because it is colour and not brightness that is sacrificed, this is called “chroma subsampling”.  Look up that term in Wikipedia for a far better and more detailed description than I can provide here.
    In a nutshell, Adobe products will use either a 4:4:4 subsampling (which is no subsampling at all, and thus full resolution) or 4:2:0 subsampling (both red and blue channels are reduced to one-quarter resolution before compression).  There is no switch to specify the amount of subsampling to use.  In Photoshop, the change from 4:2:0 to 4:4:4 happens between quality 6 and 7.  In Photoshop’s Save For Web, it happens between quality 50 and 51.  In Lightroom, you already noticed that something unexpected happens between 47-53 quality and 54-61 quality.  Guess what levels those correspond to in Photoshop?  6 and 7… exactly as expected.
    You can very easily demonstrate this by creating a worst-case scenario of JPEG chroma subsampling.  Create a small image in Photoshop with a pure blue (RGB = 0,0,255) background.  Now type in some pure red text (RGB = 255,0,0).  For maximum effect, turn off anti-aliasing, so each pixel is either full on red or full on blue. Zoom in to 500% or so for a clear view of the pixels.  Now save the image as a JPEG.  With the JPEG quality dialog visible, you will see a real-time preview of the effects of JPEG compression.  Start at 12, and work your way down to 0, one step at a time.  Watch what happens when you go from 7 to 6.  You can do the same with Save For Web and with Lightroom to confirm where they switch from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0.
    The file size discrepancy is more noticeable in the sunset shot because most of the information (relatively speaking) is needed to encode the gradual change in chrominance values.  There is virtually no luminance detail to worry about, except around the silhouette of the bird.  But in the photo of the reed window shades, the fine detail and texture and lack of colour result in practically no difference going from 4:4:4 and 4:2:0.
    Because of this hidden (and inaccessble) switch, I have been recommending that to be safe, one should never go below quality 7 in Photoshop, or 51 in Save For Web.  In Lightroom, this corresponds to quality 54.
    Hope this helps.

  • What jpeg compression does image capture use to save an image

    I am about to scan colour positive slides from many years ago, using image capture and a scanner (Epson 2450 photo).  Can anyone tell me what jpeg compression is used when the scan is saved to disk?  Further, is there any way to alter the quality of suh compression, from say, medium, to highest?

    You might be able to find it when you export it from Image Capture.

  • Export JPEG quality must be chosen twice

    Mac OS X, Lightroom 1.4.1: In Library mode, choose export, choose JPEG and quality. Then photo is opened in Photoshop and once again you have to choose jpeg quality. OK with only a few photos, but tiresome when exporting many. Is it possible only having to choose jpeg quality once (in Lightroom).

    The High setting gives you the same file size as the original file was. The medium setting results is aboutg a 50% file size reduction. The max selection greatly increases the file size but I'm not sure it increase the image quality to any noticable degree. 
    The image I tested resulted in these file sizes sizes: Original 1.4MB, High 1.4MB, Medium 774KB, Small, 402KB and Maximum, 4.6 MB. The pixel dimension of the photo remained the same in all files.
    Personally I couldn't see much difference between all of them but them my eyes are on the down side of the "hill". This website gives some interesting insight into jpeg compression: JPEG
    OT

  • Exporting JPEGs out of Lightroom3 to be projected on a screen

    I export JPEG files via a Lightroom 3 preset to an email attachment and then to be projected on a screen. 
    The color space setting I use is sRBG.  Is this setting the same as sRBGIEC61966-2.1 used in CS5?  When projected, my images are soft while  they are tack sharp in Lightroom 3 or CS5.  A fellow member of my camer club thought that the export setting could be the problem and that he always used sRGBIEC61966-2.1 from Photoshop CS5.  Any suggestions to resolve this problem?
    rbg

    That's the correct color profile for typical computer displays.
    If you are using LR's built-in "email" preset for export - then that's your problem. This preset makes for small email attachments, but poor image quality. It deliberately scales your image size down to 640 x 480, which is just 0.3 mega-pixels (same resolution as bad cell-phone cams). It also compresses image quality to only 50%. No wonder they look bad when blown up large!
    You should find out what resolution their projector runs at (typical sizes are 800x600, 1024x768, or 1280x1024). Export your pictures at that size or larger, and choose at least 80% quality setting or higher.

  • Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

    Hey Everyone,
    So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
    My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
    Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
    I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
    I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
    Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    mscriv wrote:
    So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
    JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
    My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
    *Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
    Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
    I doubt it.
    I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
    The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
    I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
    JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
    As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
    HTH
    -Allen

  • Lightroom 4.1 exported JPEG files are not recognized by Apple Preview App

    I just started using Lightroom 4.1 Trial version (coming from Aperture). I exported JPEG versions of some images using an ICC profile. On my iMac running Lion 10.7.5 the pictures do not show a thumbnail, the file on the desktop just shows "JPEG". I could not open the file with the Preview App, but I am able to open it with DPP (Canon software)? Also the file shows that it has 0 x 0 dimentions when I click Get Info even though it is about 25 Megs in size?
    The message I get is
    "The file “Edit-739820120223Canon EOS 7D.jpg” could not be opened.
    It may be damaged or use a file format that Preview doesn’t recognize."
    Does anyone know why this is hapening?
    Is it a know issue between Adobe and Apple?
    Is there a fix for this?
    Thanks for help in advance.

    25MB is quite a large filesize for a JPG, and this might be either quite a lot of pixels saved at a very "high" quality (not very much compressed), or it may be an extremely large number of pixels saved with medium compression.
    While the technical spec of the JPG format imposes an absolute limit on maximum width and height pixel dimensions, some software employs a lower limit above which it considers the file to be invalid. Different programs, different limits, sometimes.
    I have encountered this (for example) with pano stitched images using the full resolution of a large number of component shots - where JPG output could not be made, or if made, could not even be viewed as a whole by my standard image viewer (though TIFF was still OK even at still larger sizes).
    If Lightroom has been set to a large printed size AND to a high ppi resolution, it is easy to get into very high numbers and very large output files. One should IMO at least question the utility and benefit of using very high ratios of upsampling from a standard digital photo - which may happen in some cases as a result of using the same output settings regardless, when spreading the same data across both small and large scales. If the file that was imported into LR really does provide an unusually high number of pixels expressing lots of detail, then that will better deserve such a capacious output file. Otherwise, each part of the file may merely show a very highly detailed representation, of a very blurry nothing-much-in-particular.
    If the JPG has exceeded the viewer's size limits, a reported width and height of 0 may represent an error message, in effect - not actual reality.
    regards, RP

  • V25 JPEG Compression in PDF folio sucks....

    Guys -
    What happened to compression in v25 folios?
    I've had two deisgners ask me this in the last week...and I noticed it myself. I don't think we are doing anything differently...
    It seems that JPEG compression in PDF folios has been increased since prior releases of Folio Builder.
    Pixelization is really noticeable even over JPEG folios set to high quality.
    look at this screenshot...
    The image on the left is a High Quality Print PDF exported straight from inDesign. The central image is the doc as a JPEG folio. The right image is the doc as a PDF folio.
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74532153/dps.png
    Any one else notice this? And/or is there a way to override the default compression settings for PDF folios?

    Hi Javad -
    This was not resolved.
    I worked closely with Yasin at DPS Gold Support - and he could reproduce the problem but was unsure what or why it was happening.
    My guess is that a decision was made by Adobe to increase default compression to reduce file size.
    The knock against DPS is file bloat - both as it relates to file transmission and file storage.
    I think this was how they attempted to address both issues.
    There are no controls within inDesign or Folio Builder to override the default compression.
    The only way around is to create a PNG or JPEG folio and lose vector artwork.
    I'm hoping it may be addressed with V 26
    Mike

  • Lower jpeg compression on masters

    This might seem like an odd question but how can I resave masters with lower jpeg compression or even lower resolution to save disk space?
    Please dont make this a thread lecturing the downsides of actually doing this I know what Im asking of

    I'm fairly sure you're going to have to export at the compression you want and then re-import the files. I'd create a new library to import into to make it easier to remove the originals.

  • Flatten transparency without lossy JPEG compression

    Acrobat is using lossy JPEG compression (quality: medium) on some images after transparent objects were flattened. Even if the images had a ZIP compression before, Acrobat will use a lossy JPEG compression. The result is a loss of quality. There are also differences in quality within a single image, cause some images are divided in parts with a ZIP compression and with a lossy JPEG compression.
    Is there a workaround to use Acrobat's transparency flattening without JPEG compression? The problem appears in Acrobat 7, 8 and 9.

    Hi Cropas!
    As stated above my PDF export settings you can read that this option is set to OFF. <Create Tagged PDF: Off>.
    Indd can not cope with this option for embedded PDF document indd?

  • File size and quality of images from iphone to mac to exported jpeg

    there is a lot of  good info on this forum regarding jpeg compression, iphoto export etc but i want to confirm a couple things..
    i have 'my photo stream' enabled so that i can upload my iphone photos to my mac and my plan is to use iphoto (im just starting to do this)...
    yes, i understand that the 'image' taken by iphone is stored as 'data' and some of that data (and potentially pic detail/quality)  can be  lost/reduced/discarded when you ask an application to export a .jpeg with a high, med, low compression applied. 
    am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
    e.g.  i can export a 'full size' jpeg from the iphone and i see a 3.2MB file. if i look at that photo in Iphoto and export original.. i get a 3.2MB file. i assume that the original image was only compressed once?.. when it was originally stored on my camera roll in the iphone?
    If i just want to use iphoto to add tags, description... i am required to recompress the image into a file and my choice of MAX compression yields 10MB (which is more space but no more detail vs HIGH compression which yields a 1.9MB file (which most likely is less image detail).  there is no way to get the same original 3.2MB amount of data but with the appropriate text fields added into the new jpg file ?   would it be much better, at least in theory, if i could get the goldilocks file size, ie just enough compression to have a similar file size as the original ... seems like my choice is 50% less or 300% more ?!?

    am i correct that this 'my photo stream' process is not removing any image data?
    Yes,  as long as you have iPhoto's iCloud preference pane configures as follows:
    You're be getting the full image file, pixel dimensions, etc. which is essentially a bit by bit copy of the photo on the Phone.
    When you add tags and other metadata and export the file out of iPhoto as a jpeg with the checkboxes selected to include that metadata there will be some image compression.  However, if one chooses High or even Medium JPEG Quality one will be hard pressed to detect any image degradation unless printing very, large prints or otherwise displaying the image at a very, large size.
    I ran a test on a 1.4 MB photo from my iPhone  and compared the original to two exports, one at High and the other at Medium JPEG Quality and got these results:

  • Export JPEG size

    Hi, can someone explain the following.
    I've just exported some photos for printing in Lightroom and set the size to 100% and the JPEG quality to 100%. On one photo the export size is 10.1Mb when I then open file and resave it, still keeping the image size the same & re-saving at 100% JPEG quality the filesize drops to about 4Mb.
    I've used Pixelmator to resave the file. Any ideas why this would be? Why does LR save such a large file - does it use a different algorithm?
    Cheers for the replies,
    Matt

    There are lots of ways to compress jpegs. The 100% setting in your other app likely has no real relation to 100% in Lightroom. The app might be subsampling the chroma channels as lots of jpeg libraries do. Also, you are resaving a jpeg, which because of the way jpeg compression works, always leads to generational losses in quality. This usually goes hand in hand with loss in filesize. Lastly, there rarely is any advance in perceived quality going from 90% to 100% in Lightroom.

  • File Export JPEG Quality Maximum

    I have imported a 148KB image 857x1280 at 100ppi into iphoto. When I File> Export at Maximum JPEG quality I get a 475KB image. Same dimensions, same ppi. Can someone explain why please?
    Thanks

    But JPEG compression isn't just about "pixels being thrown away," and it's relative to the original. What could be happening in this case is:
    Original was probably saved at a level like JPEG Medium (around 60), since that's pretty common. Data is thrown out, so quite a bit of pixels and color info are downsampled and it drops to 148KB.
    Now you open it up and save it out at JPEG Maximum. You are telling it to preserve as much as it can, so it carefully makes note of all the existing data and writes it all out. But the problem is, the existing data was turned into worse data before, so all you did with JPEG Maximum is make it faithfully record a lot of garbage. The reason the file size went up is probably because JPEG cannot use many of the shortcuts it used to save the file out the last time, so even though there's a lot of lower quality data in it, it must still be recorded faithfully (taking up more space) because you set it to Maximum.
    This would happen whether you were working with pictures, audio, or video. Rough example: If you take a cheap old webcam video with low resolution and chunky compression, and you add it to a full HD movie, the file size is going to be change to huge HD size, not tiny webcam size. Or if you take a low-bit MP3 and resave it as a high-bit MP3 or as a standard CD file, it is going to get bigger; the sound is no better but the file must grow.

  • Lightroom 2 JPEG Compression Doesn't Compress

    I just exported photos at 515px x ~300px as JPEGs with quality on 60 (of 100) and they are about 600kB a piece!    They should be about 1/10th that size.
    I know this is known LR2 issues.  Is there a way to fix it?

    I'm not at all surprised if LR export and PS save-for-web are not the same.  PS Save-for-web has lots of options, many of which could affect the compression or metadata (and thus the size).  It may even be that the jpeg compression engines in the two programs are not the same, and quality 60 may not result in identical compression. 
    jpeg decompression is an exact process: any decoder should produce the same image from a given jpeg file.  However jpeg encoding is not defined as an exact process.  Quite a bit is left to choices in the encoder, with trade-offs between processing spent on compression and the resulting efficiency of compression. 

Maybe you are looking for