Jpegs too small

In the Downloads section of the computer are jpegs.
They were originally downloaded from sources where the pictures were large. Now the jpeg is small and when I "zoom" into the picture, it is too grainy.
How do I get the jpegs back to the larger format?
Thanks,'Mike

How do I get the jpegs back to the larger format?
You don’t.
Were these downloaded from Web Pages? Typically, jpegs on web pages are kept as small as possible to speed up downloading. This means that they are very poor quality.
Photographers also do this to protect their work.
You need to go back to who ever actually owns these photos and ask them for a high quality version.
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

Export RAW to JPEG too SMALL?

When I export a 9.5mb RAW/NEf file to jpeg, (100% quality, 240 ppi, default, original size), the jpeg file size is around 2-3mb.
If I convert the RAW/NEF file in the Nikon Editor, the jpeg version is around 6-7mb...much better.
I can't give my clients jpegs burned onto a DVD that are only 2-3mb?? Especially if they want good 8x10's, or 11x14's!! Not very professional.
Is it compressing it more than Nikon Editor, or am I missing something?

You should look at the files, not at their sizes. You cannot judge quality from filesize. There is no reason you couldn't get an outstanding 12x18 from a 2 MB jpeg file. Often the only thing bigger files do is take up more space.
>Is it compressing it more than Nikon Editor, or am I missing something?
You might be scaling by accident, but usually the image is just not very complex. The filesize you get in jpeg is related to complexity of the image. If you have large areas of solid color, the filesize will turn out small. If you have lots of noise and lots of complex shapes (like a grass field for example) you will get large files.

In iPhoto 11 imported tiff files remain tiff after editing. I need to convert to large file jpegs. How? using the "export" function they become too small

I thought imported tiff files would be converted by iPhoto to JPEGS in previous versions of iPhoto. this might have been a disadvantage but my current project requires JPEGs as the final product.
thanks for any guidance
Jim

Drag the photo from the iPhoto window to the desktop or export as kind = JPEG
As to too small - what is too small? The pixel dimensions of the exported JPEG will be identical to the original TIFF - the file size is smaller because JPEGs are compressed - which of course reduces file size - which of course is the reason that JPEG exists
LN

The JPEG attachemnet in email from InfoView in BOE X3.1 is too small

We are running BOE X3.1 sp2 in a Windows environment.
A person logs into InfoView and runs a Crystal report. The person then chooses to send it by email.
The email is sent but the JPEG attachment is too small and blurry.
Is there a setting to increase the size and/or decrease compression on the attachment?
- bruce

Depending if you want or not to include fraction of a second use:
with t as (
           select current_timestamp at time zone 'gmt' - to_timestamp_tz('01/01/1970 00:00:00 GMT','MM-DD-YYYY HH24:MI:SS TZR') interval_diff,
                   cast(current_timestamp at time zone 'gmt' as date) - to_date('01/01/1970 00:00:00', 'MM-DD-YYYY HH24:MI:SS') num_diff
             from dual
select cast(
                extract(day from interval_diff) * 24 + extract(hour from interval_diff)
               ) * 60 + extract(minute from interval_diff)
              ) * 60 + extract(second from interval_diff)
             ) * 1000000
             AS varchar(32)
            ) as "ts",
        cast(num_diff * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000000 AS varchar(32)) as "dt"
from t
ts                   dt
1336237158093000     1336237158000000
SQL> SY.

I need to batch process about 300 very large jpegs to smaller jpegs--how?

I have about 300 jpegs generated from Lightroom. They are about 30 MB apiece. I need to make them much smaller, for a DVD and for quick viewing for my client. I tried using "file" from the top Photoshop menu bar, to "scripts" to "image processor," which I usually use (but usually converting from dng to jpegs). This time, no matter what sizes I entered in the ensuing window, the final jpeg size was 32KB. This is too small!
How do I do this without overwriting the original photos, and getting useful final jpeg sizes?
Thanks,
Hillary

Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, I have tried those numbers, as well as many others. The outcome, for the method I have been using, is always the same. 32K.
I have been using the Photoshop menu "file" then "scripts" then "image processor." Again, the result is constant, and unusable. Is there some other way of achieving this? What I want is usable jpegs!
Thanks, Hillary

Why are the file sizes of exported jpegs so small?

I shoot raw, studio portraits mostly. I import to Lightroom 5 as DNG and then edit. Upon exporting as jpegs, the file sizes end up way too small, some of the cropped and/or black & white conversions as small as 560 KB, even with slider to 100%. Un-cropped color photos are ending up from 1.5 to 3MB. What am I doing wrong?

Jim,
Thank you for your response. I think some of the difficulties in this thread are that there have been more than one person reporting issues, which may or may not be exactly the same or different from the initial one reported by the original poster. Then, anyone else commenting can easily intermix bits and pieces from any or all of the other posters interrelated issues. Also, I should have added to my last response in clarification what I meant about the overall dimensions. I was referring specifically to inches, not file size, not resolution.
My very first post was a thank you to Rusty's post for his comment about how he had noticed his Resolution setting had been changed from ppi to ppcm. I didn't say anything about printing. In fact, I never even stated what my issue was. I was merely thanking him for sharing information. So, for anyone to tell me that I didn't know what my issue is, that I didn't understand was quite laughable to me. And then the other two posters were almost equally ridiculous, who said that since they didn't experience the same conditions as myself and another person, it couldn't be a programming error.
Trust me, I understand explicitly about resolution, image size, dimensions, file size and how they are all interrelated. Resolution is essentially the density of pixels. (And I'm still used to dpi vs ppi, that's how long I've been working with the concept.) I often help other people understand in whichever mode is most comfortable for them to grasp the knowledge of how to know what size image they need/want to capture and print depending on the types of measurements shown on their equipment used and by whomever they might be working with for finish work.
I have a set process, I have set image sizes, I have an action recorded in Photoshop to shrink my images to 24" x 36" and save them in the proper folder with the proper name and another to shrink them to 8" x 12" and place them in the proper folder with the proper name. I am meticulous, so when the first image imported into Photoshop and it was 18.898" x 28.346", un-cropped, I couldn't figure it out. The file size was still just as large, the resolution was still 72, I hadn't changed any settings in Lightroom or Photoshop, the ONLY thing I had done was install an update. It didn't make sense to me that with the pixel dimensions still being the normal size, all of the sudden the inch dimensions were smaller. And I did need to be able to have the capability for a larger print size if/when I do want to print.
I hope that I'm being clear now. I really was just trying to post a thank you initially. I hadn't expected all of this excess.
I apologize for the troll statement. It wasn't meant for you directly, it was more for the grouping of comments which in my opinion didn't seem to be useful for the discussion and were instead just baiting. I shouldn't have allowed my bad mood to permeate my own comment regardless. I am also sorry for any other statements I made which might have come across wrong. I was trying to be funny with my first comment about programmers, but it might not have come across that way. I hadn't expected the rude and unnecessary comment back which I received, and that's where the trollish comments came from. That's why I only responded to that person once, despite the string of poking posts.

"Large" email photo attachments too small

For no apparent reason my email photo attachments are now too small. "Actual size" will render a 4Mb jpeg true to size. However, Large, Medium and Small give a 10 Kb image. This was never the case until just recently. I've just realized that the screen grab below is also very small. Cheers, jp

My apologies - I have discovered that the issue is not apple related but caused by a new RAW converter I am using. Cheers, jp

RAW to JPG file conversions too small?

Hello,
I recently upgraded to CS3 from CS so I'm now using Bridge/ACR to convert my RAW files to .JPGs. What is puzzling me is, if I open one or more RAW files in Bridge, make some adjustments (usually WB, exposure, etc.), then use the Save Image option within Bridge to save the image(s) as .JPGs, I am getting very small file sizes (I'm using the Max Quality setting in Bridge, which is 10). For example, a RAW file goes from 6.5MB to 1.2MB. However, if I open the RAW file in Photoshop instead of Bridge/ACR, make adjustments, then save as a maximum quality .jpg, the file goes from 6.5MB to 4.5MB. My concern is that when using the batch/save option within Bridge I'm losing quality somewhere?
Any ideas?
Thanks,
FTP

Hi Omke,
Thank you for sharing your workflow--very generous and quite interesting.
Yesterday, I barged into an Adobe Forums thread similar to mine and I discovered the reason for the file size difference, it's the 10 setting you get when you select Maximum Quality from the Bridge Save Image dialogue box. Bridge, like PS, actually goes to a 12 quality setting, but you have to type in the 12 manually (a curious requirement) rather than selecting the Max Quality option, which always goes to 10. Once I manually typed in 12, my Bridge-converted (RAW to .jpg) files became precisely the same size as when I convert them using PS.
Here's a link to the thread:
charles badland, "raw to jpeg,jpeg file too small" #36, 30 Sep 2008 1:47 pm
Thanks again for your help and suggestions,
--FTP

Photoshop resolution on Macbook Pro 15" Retina display too small

I've just bought a Macbook Pro 15" and I'm trying to use Photoshop, but the resolution its displaying the images at for 100% are too small. I have to design for the web, so need to be intricate with detail, but I'm finding it adjusts the resolution of the image right down. (I mean you can see the image clearly, but it's too small to edit). When I look at Safari and see a web page at 100% it's clear, but the same page displayed in Photoshop CC appears 50% of the size (even though it says it's 100%)
If I move the application window to another screen it adjusts it correctly – leaving all the pallettes, menus and tools correctly sized as they are on the retina display
Is there some way to adjust the way Photoshop CC displays images so it is more consistent with what you actually see?
There doesn't seem to be any answer on the Adobe forum, so hopefully someone here can shed some light.

quaetapo wrote:
Well that certainly helps in terms of making the image larger – only problem is with the low resolution there's a loss of clarity and pixelisation of the image; so not the same level of quality...
In System Preferences/Display, what resolution do you have your screen set to? Try changing that also to see if the two settings can work together. Also, since the vast majority of users (Mac or PC) don't have Retina Displays, isn't what you're seeing with Low Resolution checked in Photoshop closer to what most people will see? Remember that Apple's software, such as Safari, have been upgraded to take full advantage of the rMBP display; most other browsers, especially in Windows, haven't.
And if you want to tinker with the rMBP's resolution even further, check out "Eye-Friendly" in the App Store.

The ADO NET Source was unable to process the data. ORA-64203: Destination buffer too small to hold CLOB data after character set conversion.

We developed a SSIS Package to pull the data From Oracle source to Sql Server 2012. Here we used ADO.Net source to pull the records from Source but getting the below error after pulling some 40K records.
[ADO NET Source [2]] Error: The ADO NET Source was unable to process the data. ORA-64203: Destination buffer too small to hold CLOB data after character set conversion.
[SSIS.Pipeline] Error: SSIS Error Code DTS_E_PRIMEOUTPUTFAILED.
The PrimeOutput method on ADO NET Source returned error code 0xC02090F5.
The component returned a failure code when the pipeline engine called PrimeOutput().
The meaning of the failure code is defined by the component,
but the error is fatal and the pipeline stopped executing.
There may be error messages posted before this with more
information about the failure.
Anything that we can do to fix this?

Hi,
Tried both....
* Having schema type as Nvarchar(max). - Getting the same error.
* Instead of ADO.Net Source used OLEDB Source with driver as " Oracle Provide for OLE DB" Getting error as below.
[OLE DB Source [478]] Error: SSIS Error Code DTS_E_OLEDBERROR. An OLE DB error has occurred. Error code: 0x80004005.
[SSIS.Pipeline] Error: SSIS Error Code DTS_E_PRIMEOUTPUTFAILED. The PrimeOutput method on OLE DB Source returned error code 0xC0202009. The component returned a failure
code when the pipeline engine called PrimeOutput(). The meaning of the failure code is defined by the component, but the error is fatal and the pipeline stopped executing. There may be error messages posted before this with more information about the
failure.
Additional Info:
* Here the Source task is getting failed not the conversion or destination task.
Thanks,
Loganathan A.

Error "roll area too small"! Can't find a way to resolve!Please hep.

Hello everyone:
       i am getting the error "roll area too small" when I am looping through an internal table and calling the code below on change of some value.
===
CALL FUNCTION 'GET_PRINT_PARAMETERS'
      EXPORTING
        authority              = space
        immediately            = space
        new_list_id            = c_x
        no_dialog              = c_x
       user                   = sy-uname
      IMPORTING
        out_parameters         = params
      EXCEPTIONS
        archive_info_not_found = 1
        invalid_print_params   = 2
        invalid_archive_params = 3
        OTHERS                 = 4.
    IF sy-subrc NE 0.
      CLEAR : params.
    ENDIF.
The printer destination has to be set up
    params-pdest = v_dest.
    params-prtxt = v_spool_text.
    params-paart = lc_paart.
    params-prtxt = v_spool_text.
    params-primm = 'X'.
    params-prrel = space.
    NEW-PAGE PRINT ON PARAMETERS params NO DIALOG.
    NEW-PAGE PRINT OFF.
======
I posted this before and got some feedback and tried everything but it is not fixing the problem! I rewarded points to all the answers. I had basis increase roll area size, optimized code and did everything I can but I am still getting the same error "roll area too small". Same program works in 4.6C but in ECC6.0 I get this error! I have other programs that generates more than 10,000 pages in the spool but the program I am working on creates only 7700 pages! I am not sure what else is changed in ECC6.0! Could someone please give me any ideas? rewards assured.
thanks.
Mithun

Hello Mithun,
Even i think increasing the roll area should have helped
Are both the systems WIndows based or is one unix based ?
see this
http://listserv.sap.com/pipermail/linux.general/2001-July/thread.html#670
and search for "roll area too small" in the list of links
it may help
Also,
in this solution, it says to use 'field groups'
http://www.sapfans.com/sapfans/forum/r2all/messages/42.html
Try these links as well - others with the same problem
http://marc.info/?l=mysap-linux-general&w=4&r=1&s=%22rollareatoo+small%22&q=b
Message was edited by:
        Kris Donald

Photoshop CC icons and text are too small: how to adjust so they're readable? [was: Joanne]

I have just downloaded Creative Cloud on a new computer. The new photoshop icons and text are too small for me to see or work with. I cannot seem to adjust this so its "useable"

Hey Bob,
Ive put feature requests for this in before and I know many others have as well. Is there any way to see if Adobe is actually working on this? I dont really consider this a feature request, it should be standard with the software. A feature request would be something like creative cloud libraries, not the ability to make font sizes and icons bigger.

UI text too small

Is there a way to make the text in the UI larger?The default size is too small and strains the eyes.

tidysteve wrote:
but doesn't that make it system wide ??? not just for aperture ???
it was intended as a tool to use by those that are legally blind to zoom any part of the os, we use it every day as a teaching/demoing tool.
you can also zoom into a photo or video without creating artifacts/pixelation which the normal zoom tool does on many apps
i suppose you could just change it back and forth ...
apple option 8 -- toggles it on and off, or you can use one "Butler" hot key for it http://www.manytricks.com/butler/
http://www.petermaurer.de/butler/
victor

Thumbnails in "OPEN" dialog box too small to see!

The thumbnails are too small in the open dialog box so that I can't see the file I want to open. Yes, you can make them bigger in finder itself...but I am always opening pictures and I just can't see them!
Almost as frustrating as the column issue. The name column is very very wide when I try to open a file.. so I can't sort by the other columns without dragging over the bar at the bottom of the screen. THis is so so frustrating. I resize but it doesn't stick to the next session.
Apple invented the finder. Why is it so inferior to windows explorer?

The only solution to enlarging the icons in an application open dialog window is to use the Accessibility panel in System Preferences. Under Zoom, enable Use keyboard shortcuts to zoom.
The first time you have an application open dialog, you press the keys: option + command + = as many times as you want to zoom in. This will enlarge the open dialog window and its contents. When done, press option + command + 8 to restore normal window size. Subsequently, you can alternatively press option + command + 8 to zoom to the previous setting, or return to normal zoom.
This is as good as it is going to get. The applications (not just Apple’s) only use a subset of Finder’s settings in the open dialogs, and these do not include icon enlargement settings, which as you realize, are part of the actual Finder’s settings. The application development frameworks, and not Finder, are remiss in not providing icon size adjustments in open dialog windows.
You can provide feedback to Apple regarding OS X.

Open/save dialog boxes stuck at (too small) default size

I've been having a relatively small issue with Mountain Lion that has become a big hassle. In past versions of OS X, whenever I'd resize an open/save dialog box in an application, it would be that size the next time I went to open/save. In Mountain Lion, however, those dialog boxes always default to the smallest possible size (which is too small to read a filename longer than a few characters). so I have to resize the dialog box — every time! I open and save a lot of files, so this gets pretty tedious. This doesn't seem to happen in apple programs, but it definitely does in the Office Suite and the Adobe Creative Suite, especially in CS4 Photoshop and Illustrator. Might be I can fix it by myself but I can't imagine where I may dig it.

You might try looking here for the Adobe products:
Adobe Help and Support
Try Microsoft support for the Office Products:
http://www.microsoft.com/mac

Jpegs too small

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for