File SIze Question

Have a Tiff file open. Image box at the bottom gives 59M/82M and the get info in the Finder tells me the file size is 120M. Which of these is the actual size of the file?
Thanks
Geoff

The Finder shows you how much disk space is being used by the file, including any round-off of sectors.
Photoshop shows you the size of the file in RAM.
It's all explained in the Help files.

Similar Messages

File size questions

new to Apple MAC and iPhoto...so....I shot my new camera in jpeg, files are roughly 20mb...then I shot in RAW and after editing, the saved jpegs are ~ 5-10mb and up to 15mb....what happens to make this discrepency? how could my RAW converted jpegs be ~ 1/3 the size of straight out of camera jpegs?
another question...iPhoto is 1.7 gb, my iPhoto Library size it 37gb, but my pictures in iPhoto total 17gb.....is the discrepecy due to stuff like Slideshows I created? Faces just is referring the files right, not making duplicate files?...having trouble wrappping my head around stuff I''m seeing that doesn't add up...
thanks

It's all a bit more complex that that. There is no correlation between file size and the quality of a shot. A well exposed shot of 2 or 3 mb will print just as well as a well exposed shot of 25mb. There is no difference in what gets printed. A poorly exposed shot of 25mb will print like garbage.
It gets worse, we used to suggest a rule of thumb that printing at 300dpi was a reasonable giude to printing quality. Not any more. Printers and cameras have improved, iPhoto books are uploaded at something akin to 150 dpi.
Again, a 3 mb jpeg will print exactly as well as a 30 mb tiff.
Remember, the internet is full of high quality images that weigh in at a lot less than 500kb.
Where file size comes into play is when you're using destructive editing on a lossy format, like Jpeg, and, as I said above, that doesn't come into play in a non-destructive editing system like iPhoto.
The output from the export will - depending on the settings you use - either be smaller or larger than the jepg from a camera. It means very little - unless you're going to go an an edited destructively.

Linked Smart Objects - File Size Question

Hey guys,
first time using linked smart objects and I was pretty excited about it at first. I have a large photoshop file with 1920x1080 image assets. The file size is about 1GB and everytime I make a minor change the entire file has to be re-uploaded to my Dropbox.
So I figured that I could make all these image assets linked smart objects so that I can keep the master file down in file size since most of the actual assets don't change. However, even the PSD that contains nothing by linked smart layer objects is already 400MB large. And that's in addition to the external PSD's it is now linking to.
Even if I duplicate a linked smart layer object in this PSD file it increased the file size by an additional 10MB per duplicate. Is this supposed to happen? Why does it take so much space to just link to external objects? I was super excited about using linked smart layer objects but this doesn't look like it would be helping much to decrease file size.
Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
Thanks,
Philipp

Hey Chris,
thanks again! I guess I just had different expectations. In my mind I was going to see a parent file around 10MB or something with all of the content being dynamically loaded from the linked smart objects.
Maybe that could be a feature requests for future versions.

IMovie music rights and file size questions

1. I'm producing a movie of videos and still photos from a recent vacation strictly for personal family use, not commercial. Is there any violation at all of copyrights if I add songs or loops from a commercial artists music CD? Also, I'm assuming no rights problem with using in my home movie the Garage Band loops that came with my iLife'06.
2. I'm wondering about the file size of my movie so far. It is 26 minutes long and 6.5 GB! I'm guessing I'll end up with about 40 minutes. What is the compression procedure so I can later record the movie to a typical 4.9 GB DVD disc? BTW I'm using an external LaCie burner to get around problems with the 2X DVD burner in my 2002 G4 Quicksilver.
Many thanks in advance.
Raymon

The "personal use" issue (in the U.S. anyway) was resolved in the users favor when the first VHS recorders started shipping.
There are also millions of files that are "royalty free" that be used in any fashion.
Don't worry about the file size of your iMovie project. iDVD only uses the "time" (up to 2 hours) and will handle the compression automatically.

File Size Question: Browser vs. MediaManager vs. Finder

Not an earth-shattering issue, but am just curious as to why the Browser, MM, and the Finder each offer different opinions as to the size of a given media file (or group of files).
I've just finished capturing a couple of hours of HDV footage from a friend's Sony cam (model HDR-HC7). Used Capture Now with the pref to create new media files at any TC break. (Will later do selective shot-by-shot logging and transcoding into ProRes422, so this B-cam material can be easily combined with AVCHD-originated footage which is being ProRes'd on ingest. For now just had to get it all on disk, since my friend needs his camera back!)
Anyway, everything went smoothly, but to use one file as an example, I happened to notice that in FCP7's "Size" Browser column, it's 78.2 MB; whereas MediaManager sees it as 77.1 MB; yet the Finder shows it as 82 MB.
All the other captured files show a similar variation. Everything's in the same ballpark, of course -- and these days what's a few MBs between friends? -- but the differences total a couple of GBs by the end of day; still not a big deal in the grand scheme, just more of a variation than I would have predicted.
So -- does anyone happen to know why this is the case? Do the Browser, MM, and the Finder each have different ways of evaluating how much space a particular media file is actually occupying, or are they each measuring subtly different things?
Like I said -- just curious.
Thanks,
John B.
Toronto

+Is there a particular reason why it makes sense for the Browser to use one way, and the Finder to use the other?+
Most likely it is down to which particular call is used by the programer to ascertain file size and therefore the way that file size data is returned to the app. Don't forget that the FCP's basic code is pretty darn old now and predates current best practices for file size reporting.
+And why, staying with the above example, does the Media Manager come up with its own unique measurement altogether, different from BOTH of the others (or is that just part of its charm)?+
Weird huh? And here's the bit you won't like ... I don't see the same discrepancy. On my system Media Manager and the Browser seem to report file sizes consistently.
+Also -- am I correct in noticing that under Snow Leopard, Disk Utility has switched from one measurement scheme to the other? (DU suddenly seems to be seeing my 500GB drives as having a single-volume partition of -- gasp -- 500GB! Who would've thought?)+
Yup, its a brave new world.

Place .jpg from PS CS3 to IllusCS3-File size question

Newbie here- Good Morning
I am creating a doc in Illustrator that will ultimately be saved as a pdf for online viewing. In PS, I am increasing the images ppi from 72 to 300 as well as decreasing it's size, saving it at medium quality jpg and I get a file size around 175k(perfect for me). When I place the image in Illustrator and save the file, I get an overall document file size increase of over 800k.
Is there any way to avoid this?
Thanks!

It sounds as if you are embedding the image rather than linking it.
Either drag the image from the Finder or Bridge or else File-Place and check Link.
(If you drag from the Finder with Shift held down it will be embedded.)
There's usually no need to embed images unless you're prepraring HiRes pdf files for print, in which case it's best to leave the embedding until just before you save as pdf. Failure to embed images in print files may result in white horizontal lines cutting through the images.

Importing VHS into Imovie - file size question

Hi,
The novice is back so bear with me please.
I'm using the Canopus ADVC-55 to import a 2 hour VHS into imovie so that I can convert it to DVD in iDVD. However, the file size is so massive that its eating up my hard drive. If I get an external hard drive, can I move the imovie project I'm working on to the external drive and will I still be able to use the imovie application even if the actual application is on the main hard drive? I just figure because of file limitations when working with digital files on my hard drive, it might be more practical to get a 200gig external but I want to make sure that I can still use the imovie application from it.
Thanks.

Leslie,
If you do get an external drive, make sure it's formatted Mac OS Extended or it may not work properly with iMovie.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93296
Matt

RAW Conversion to JPG file size question

I'm fairly new to Lightroom and have noticed when I convert from RAW to JPG my approx. 8MB RAW files become approximately 2-3MB JPG files. I have the program set to convert to JPG at the highest possible quality. I've had clients ask about the file size and would like to be able to explain this to them in simple terms but I first need to understand why this is the case myself! When I used a different processing program the converted files were only slightly smaller than the originals. Please explain!
Thanks!

It depends on the quality settings you use. JPEG files have I think 12 quality settings, with 12 being pretty big, and 8-10 being reasonable compromises.
This is lossy compression, so data is thrown away. The quality setting determines how much info is thrown away.
Only thing you can really do is export at a few quality settings and compare them, to see if YOU can see the difference.
For me, I don't really care about minimizing file size so I always choose highest quality.

Workflow, capturing, and file sizes question

I currently use FCE strictly for DV work, but need to upgrade to either FCE HD or FCP for use with HDV.
My workflow now consists of capturing to a scratch disk, then archiving the captured DV file to an external HD for backup purposes and storing the original tape in a safe location.
With FCE HD, can I similarly archive the captured HDV file prior to transcoding to AIC? Or, must I archive the much larger transcoded file? I would perfer to archive the smaller file, and then retranscode it if necessary to work on the project again at a later date (similarly to how I can now just copy the original captured DV file back and reopen the project).
Thanks,
Randy

Tom,
Thanks for the info. I know that FCE HD cannot EDIT HDV natively, but since the transcoding is not done in real time during capture, I wondered if the captured HDV data was stored in a temporary file until transcoded (and if the temporary file could be archived).
Unless FCE HD can export to MPEG-2 with minimal loss, it sounds like I would need to archive the AIC file, or use FCP to edit native HDV and export.
- Randy

Question about RAW to JPG file sizes

Hello all, I have a question/concern in reference to file size changes when converting from RAW to JPG formats in PSE6. I've recently purchased a CANON 50D, and have started shooting in RAW format (actually RAW2+JPG). I have the CAMERA RAW 5.2 plugin and my workflow process is something akin to this:
1. Separate all RAW and JPG images into their respective folders.
2. Open the RAW folder in BRIDGE, and then open up a CR2 file. CR2 file is approx 15MB at this point, as reported in Finder.
3. Perform various corrections in ACR52 to the file, then do as SAVE AS to a DNG file.
4. Next step is to OPEN IMAGE, bringing it up in PSE6.
5. Make any necessary corrections to the picture, and then do a SAVE AS to a new file name and folder, selecting JPG format.
6. Selection MAX QUALITY from subsequent dialogue box, and SAVE.
When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
I've been doing some reading on this over the weekend, but cant explain away the severe loss in file size, and whether this is right, or if I'm doing something wrong in the process.
Appreciate any advice or suggestions to help improve my work processes, and ultimately the final photos!

Regarding your file size questions, have a look at this thread and see if it answers some of your questions:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/741532/0
> When the file is saved, its now down to a mere 2.1 or 2.2MB, and when viewing its properties (vs. the same file that came from camera in JPG format), its down from a 44x66" format, to somewhere around 4x6" and 240dpi.
Dimensions and resolution are related and multiple combinations can be produced from the same number of pixels. For example, your 50D at maximum image size produces 4,752 by 3,168 pixels. This full-size image could be printed at:
- 19.8 x 13.2 inches at 240 PPI
- 47.52 x 31.68 inches at 100 PPI
- 7.92 x 5.28 inches at 600 PPI
As you can maybe see, talking about dimensions and resolution doesn't make much sense until you are ready to consider printing. Note also that I used "PPI" or Pixels Per Inch since this is the slightly more correct terminology. DPI or "Dots Per Inch" is usually a reference to how a printer lays down the ink drops onto the paper. Many printers actually put more "dots" on the paper than there are pixels. Many people and companies use DPI when they mean PPI.
Now in your case you are apparently starting with an SRAW2 raw file. SRAW2 files from the 50D have a reduced number of pixels and are 2,276 pixels wide by 1,584 pixels high. At 240 PPI this would allow you to print the image at 9.9 by 6.6 inches. If you are ending up with something smaller than that, it means you have either re-sampled the image (changed the image so the same image is displayed with fewer pixels) or you have cropped the image.
Hope that helps.

First time user questions (managing library, file size defaults, cropping,)

I'm on my first Mac, which I am enjoying and am also using iPhoto '08 for the first time which is a great tool. It has really increased my efficiency in editing a lot of photos at one time. However, the ease of use makes a couple custom things I want to do difficult. I'd appreciate any feedback;
1) I often want to get at my files for upload or transfer to another machine. When I access Photos with my Finder I can only see "Iphoto Library" (or something like that) which does not show the individual files. Very annoying. I have found that i can browse to one of the menus and select "Open Library" and then I can see all the files.
How can I make it default to this expanded setting? When I am uploading pictures via a web application, for instance, the file open tool does not usually give me the option to Open the library. By Default, I would like the library to always be expanded so I do not have to run iPhoto or select "open" to view the files.
Basically, I just want easy manual control of my files in Finder and other applications.
2) Where do I set the jpg size of an edited file? My camera will output 10MB files and after a simple straighten or crop, iPhoto will save them to 1MB files.
Ignoring the debate on file size, is there a way to control the jpg compression so I can stay as close to what came out of the camera as possible?
3) I crop all my photos to 5x7. If I do that once, it comes up the next time. However, once I straighten the photo and then choose crop, it always comes up with some other odd size by default (the largest rectangle that can be fit in the new photos size).
While I know this may be useful for some people, it is time consuming when going through hundreds of photos to constantly have to choose "5x7" from the drop down list. Is there a way to make this the default?
I'm sure I'll have some more questions, but thus far, I've been real happy with iPhoto.
4) The next task will be sharing this Mac Pictures folder on my Wireless network so my XP PC can access it. I'm open to any tips on that one as well....
Thanks!

toddjb
Welcome to the Apple Discussions.
There are three ways (at least) to get files from the iPhoto Window.
1. *Drag and Drop*: Drag a photo from the iPhoto Window to the desktop, there iPhoto will make a full-sized copy of the pic.
2. *File -> Export*: Select the files in the iPhoto Window and go File -> Export. The dialogue will give you various options, including altering the format, naming the files and changing the size. Again, producing a copy.
3. *Show File*: Right- (or Control-) Click on a pic and in the resulting dialogue choose 'Show File'. A Finder window will pop open with the file already selected.
To upload to MySpace or any site that does not have an iPhoto Export Plug-in the recommended way is to Select the Pic in the iPhoto Window and go File -> Export and export the pic to the desktop, then upload from there. After the upload you can trash the pic on the desktop. It's only a copy and your original is safe in iPhoto.
This is also true for emailing with Web-based services.
If you use Apple's Mail, Entourage, AOL or Eudora you can email from within iPhoto.
The format of the iPhoto library is this way because many users were inadvertently corrupting their library by browsing through it with other software or making changes in it themselves. If you're willing to risk database corruption, you can restore the older functionality simply by right clicking on the iPhoto Library and choosing 'Show Package Contents'. Then simply make an alias to the folders you require and put that alias on the desktop or where ever you want it. Be aware though, that this is a hack and not supported by Apple.
Basically, I just want easy manual control of my files in Finder and other applications.
What's above is what's on offer. Remember, iPhoto is NOT a file organiser, it's a photo organiser. If you want to organise files, then use a file organiser.
Where do I set the jpg size of an edited file
You don't. Though losing 9MB off a 10MB files is excessive. Where are you getting these file sizes.
I crop all my photos to 5x7. If I do that once, it comes up the next time. However, once I straighten the photo and then choose crop, it always comes up with some other odd size by default (the largest rectangle that can be fit in the new photos size).
Straightening also involves cropping. Best to straighten first, then crop.
The next task will be sharing this Mac Pictures folder on my Wireless network so my XP PC can access it.
If you use the hack detailed above be very careful, it's easy to corrupt the iPhoto Library, and making changes to the iPhoto Package File via the Finder or another app is the most popular way to go about it.
Regards
TD

Question about Domain file size...

I have a dot Mac account, and my iDisk capacity is 1 Gb.
As I regularly back-up my Domain file from my G5 iMac to a FW external drive that sits on my desk, I have just noticed that the file size is now just over 1 Gb.
Can someone please explain to me why I still have almost 700Mb left on my iDisk, yet my Domain file size is over 1 Gb?? Obviously, there must be 'internal' files that aren't copied to the iDisk.
Thanks,
Rachel.

Wow, that's quite a discrepancy. 1gb Domain vs. 300mb site? Well suffice it to say that the Domain file contains all the information that is needed to generate your site. But it makes me curious too why you have such a large discrepancy. Do you have a lot of video on your site?
My site is only about 50-60mb and my Domain is roughly the same size. When I first started using iWeb, I used to poke around inside the Domain file quite a bit more than I do now. You can open up your Domain file by Control-clicking it and selecting "Show Package Contents." At one point early on when I was blithely dragging and dropping stuff into iWeb and publishing just for experimentation, I noticed that even after I deleted images or EVEN WHOLE PAGES, that sometimes the Domain file would still contain images and quicktime movies left over from the deleted pages. I didn't know what was going on and actually tried to delete the "old" items from the Domain file, but I ended up with a non-functional Domain file...lots of error messages saying it was missing this and that. So I started over completely with a new Domain file. I also noticed at the time that my Domain file was several megabytes larger than my site.
Since then, I have been very careful only to drag items to iWeb that will actually be used. The Domain-to-site size ratio has stayed pretty much 1:1. So I chalked up my earlier experience as a fluke. I don't know. Maybe there is an inconsistency somewhere. In fact, do a search here on "Domain file optimizing" or "Domain file bloat" and you may be able to find my questions about the issue. I never did get any responses, though.

Question of file size related to power point

I am a relatively new user to Premier Pro and currently have simple editing needs. I am creating a powerpoint presentation in 2010 with multiple video clips (no audio). The file size (powerpooint) has become too large (@ 300MB). I plan to use a progam called Captivate to voice over the presentation. This will then save and will be used on a secure webserver. My concern is the file size will be unreasonable to download for the end user. After much trial and error I chose to use WMV, H264p, 29.97 and changed the bitrate to 4000 to reduce the video size. Other codecs would not show in powerpoint 2010 and quicktime created huge files. I have 2 questions 1. any recommendations on reducing video file size without sacrificing quality (currently 1 min of video= @ 28MB). Note I am using a fast blur to conceal patient's identity. 2. any suggestions on program similar to Captivate that may handle larger files for download.
I appreciate any guidance.
Thank you.

There's really only two ways to reduce the file size of a video clip - make it shorter, or reduce the bitrate.

Linking Questions cs5: Linking within the Same file, Sharing links, file size bloat

I have to make print cards for my job. Print cards being a 1 page version of the Larger package layout that the place I work manufactures. On this print card is a section for customer info on top, and the print representation on the bottom. What I've been doing is using two files. The first file is the full-scale art on one artboard, and the customer info on the second artboard, but both within one file.
On the second file, I combine the two. I still use two artboard because it's a front and back print-off. The front page (1st art board, 2nd file), is the customer info at the top (linked from the 2 art board, 1st file) and the full art shrunk to fit below (also linked). the back page (2nd art board, 2nd file) is the individual elements of the artwork, zoomed in for easier viewing. For the second page, I use masked links from the fullsize art, sized appropriately. The reason it's important that they all use links, is so if I update the art, it will update the print cards as well.
I've been trying to stream-line this process. This works ok, but the numerous links bloat the file size, and I have to email these to customers. I've started using "Flatten Transparency" on all my Print cards (2nd file) and saving it as a separate .pdf. This cuts out the links, but then all of my masked images are hiding the whole original file behind their mask. So then I started manually cropping each individual masked area, which helps, but once I've gone through this whole process, I don't think I've saved any of the time my template was supposed to save.
file://localhost/Users/troubleinthemaking/Desktop/PRINT%20MINI%20EXAMPLE.pdf
My questions are these:
Is there any way to link to elements within the same file? Like from a different artboard?
I've successfully 'Placed' an artboard from the same file, back into that file (but a different artboard), but this creates a never-ending Save/Update loop. I'd like a better way to do this.
Is there a way to have all instances of a linked file, draw from the same place? i.e. When you update a single link, all instances of that Link would update. plus this would, in theory, cut down on the file size.
Is there any way to automatically have every masked link crop itself after using the flatten transparency command?
Even if I had to select them first. I haven't had any luck selecting them all and then using the pathfinder crop tool. I've had to do each one individually.
I know this last one can't really be answered without seeing everything on my machine. I don't even know what info I'd need to give...
WHY MY FILE SIZE SO BIG!
Thanks ahead of time.
-Jefferson

Jefferson:
There's a few things you can do to make your files smaller, such as using the Action "Delete All Unused Panel Items" which will removed all unused Symbols, Graphic Styles, Brushes and Swatches from your Illustrator files. Those little items add up to bloating a file.
You also need to examine the images that you place into your Illustrator file. Any unnecessary layers or channels? Can the files be flattened before being placed in Illustrator? You can always keep a "working" Photoshop file of all that extra goobledeegook and then flatten the file and do a "Save As" and place that in the Illustrator file. And that could be a Photoshop EPS saved with a TIFF Preview and JPEG Encoding (Maximum Quality), which will save some MBs.
But, you should never sacrifice file size for quality. If these files are going to print, you should be using an FTP program to transfer the files and not email them. Email should not be used for files over 5 MB. If all you want to do is send the customer a Low Resolution PDF Proof for approval via Email, that's fine and dandy, but send the final large size files to the Printer via FTP.

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

File SIze Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for