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.

Similar Messages

How to reduce jpg file size, not pixel dimensions?

I am preparing images for the web and I really have 2 questions: one about gifs, and one about jpgs.
My standard procedure is to reduce the image to the desired pixel dimensions at 600 dpi
That gives me a crisp small image. then I either use it as is if the file size is low enough (I try for under 600 kb) or convert it to a gif with the save for web and devices tool.
So here are my 2 questions (I will count this solved with either answer)
1) When I convert to a gif I have the 4 boxes: one with original size, the other 3 with options but often the options are too low res for me How do I change my 3 options to start at a higher gif res?
2) If I try to reduce the file size of the jpg in the image size box I set the resolution lower ( 400, 300), which lowers the pixel dimensions and the filesize, but I don't want to cahnge the pixel dimensions. And If I reset the pixel dimensions back to the size I want them, even though it is a lower resolution the file size doesn't change. How to reduce jpg file size using only the resolution, not pixel dimensions? PS I have tried messing with checking and unchecking the 3 little boxes( scale styles, constrain proportions, and resample) but nothing has worked.

Gif is not a great filetype, especially if you want a crisp image. What are your pixel dimensions?
For web, it makes no difference what the dpi is, only the final pixel dimensions so once you have that as you want, use 'Save for Web and Devices' and you can lower the quality - 100% being max and 0% being lowest. I wouldn't save anything below 55%. For a 600kb image, your dimensions must be rather big.

Bridge CS5 is Corrupting Raw and JPG Files Right Before My Eyes

I am using Bridge CS5 on a Mac to work on Raw files from a Canon camera. The files all looked good in the cameras review, and looked good when downloaded to the computer then the files started to corrupt and become unusable one at a time as I watched. They became all white or lines of color. Not all of them corrupted yhough (about 225 of 1100 did though). I eventually worked the uncorrupted files and even turned them into JPGs and sent them out. The next day I pull up the pics in bridge to see if they are still bad. All of a sudden files I opened and worked on yesterday started to corrupt one after another. Both the JPG and Raw files are corrupt and unusable even though they worked yesterday. It only happens when in Bridge. What is going on? This is riduculous.
Terry

Thanks for responding. What happens is I highlight a large group of files then click on open with Bridge or in Bridge I go to the subdirectory with the files. All the files are in a filmstrip on the left side of the screen. All of a sudden the file that I am viewing becomes corrupt (that is it turns into multiple horizontal lines of colors. Then I can watch as it happens to one file after another. I would compare it to when you quickly view film strips that were just uploaded and the initial thumbnail is blurry and then slowly all the thumbnails get clear as they process. But here they appear to already be fine thumbnails but then turn into the files with horizontal lines or sometimes just 30% or so so of the pic is visible and the rest is white or gray. When I try to open it the file cannot be opened because it is corrupt. It happens to both the RAW and the JPG file (I shoot in Raw+JPG). The first day it happened to about 200 of the 1200 files. So I was able to process the 1000 good ones in Raw convertor and create JPGs with no trouble. The next day I open all the files in Bridge again to see if the bad ones are good now and files I had already opened and were perfectly fine in RAW converter start to corrupt one after another like the ones did the day before. So I doubt it is the card or hardware it only happens in Bridge. Bridge must have the capability to do something to the files. It isnt making XMF files so thats not it, it is actually corrupting the RAW and JPG files. Have you ever heard of that. I found another forum with what sounded like the same issue to someone who had a Canon: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/645620
But this happened to Windows and I use MAC.....but I do use a 7D like them. I still wonder if Bridge just doesnt work well with Canon 7Ds or something like that. The above thread never found a solution. Maybe someone from Adobe has heard of this from others and discovered a reason or solution. Until then I cant trust Adobe products at all....which really sucks after how much it cost me, but whole shoots lost is worse, I guess.

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

I have a question about using adobe CS files in CS6 edition

I am a graphic artist . I have a question about using adobe CS files in CS6 edition. when I am gonna open thse adobe CS created files in CS6 Edition i get a color variation than i made with the CS version.Please give me an idea about this issue as soon as possible.If you need i can upload my problem as a screenshot to clearity

donrulz,
Are your Edit>Color Settings the same?
Are you using spot colours, such as Pantone (there have been some changes in CMYK values with new colour books)?

Reduce jpg. file size

a website requires jpg. file size to be reduced to 5000kb. i'm at 1.1mb. how do i reduce it to the required size?
rsvp...

5000kb is 5 times larger than 1.1 MB
Anyway: File -> Export. In the resulting dialogue "Size" refers to the dimensions of the photo (length by breadth) and Jpeg Quality refers to the file size. Lower Quality means smaller file size.
Regards
TD

Iphoto increases jpg file size

Hi,
I've first noticed that iPhoto is re saving the AutoRotated images when importing them. I've realized this after seeing a lot of pictures in the Modified folder, when I've actually haven't done any editing on them...
But, more importantly, the JPG file size of the rotated image increased considerably. I've looked at the metadata with the exiftool and found that iPhoto is saving the JPG using the Big-endian byte order. I suspect this is the cause of the increased file size.
A concrete example:
mifoto0342.JPG 2986371
mifoto0342_iphoto.jpg 3765579
- Pancho

All other things being equal, the endianness of the EXIF will not affect the file size.
There must be something else that is changing in the file. Either the image is being recompressed (god forbid), or lots of metadata is being added (more likely).
- Phil Harvey

Since mountain lion my MBP won't import RAW or jpg files

my MBP won't import RAW or jpg files. Worked fine before. Could it be Mountain Lion?

By way of a double check I just imported photos, both jpg and RAW, without any problems into Aperture 3.3.2 on Mountain Lion without any problems what so ever.
Allan

.jpg file size preview quit working

Using CS5 extended (v.12.0.1x32) in Windows 7 Entp (64bit): My save-as dialog has quit showing a preview of .jpg file size regardless of where the quality slider is set. This feature was working fine, and just seemed to quit. Now all I get is the short, horizontal line in place of a number, and no matter how long I wait, no file size number appears.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance,
ACB

Thank you very much for the suggestion. Unfortunately the problem persists.
Turning PS CS5 off and back on -- problem still present
Delete preferences file (via CTRL+SHIFT+ALT at startup) -- problem still present
Delete preferences file (xx...xx.psp) via search and delete -- problem still present
Reboot of OS -- problem still present
Roboot of OS, followed by steps above, followed by Reboot -- problem still present
Excellent idea... I hadn't thought of it; I wish it had worked. I'm open to any other suggestions.
Thanks,
ACB

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.

JPG file size differences in ACR and PS

Camera: Nikon D80
Photoshop: CS3 Extended v.10.0.1
ACR: version 4.3.1
Saving from ACR, Q=9 -> 1,2Mb
Saving from ACR, Q=10 -> 1,8Mb
PS, Q=11 (no thumbnail) -> 3,1Mb
PS, Q=11 (with thumbnail) -> 3,1Mb (no difference)
PS, Q=12 (no thumbnail) -> 5,8Mb
PS, Q=12 (with thumbnail -> 5,8Mb (no difference)
Save for Web, Q=90: 3,7Mb (larger than PS/11)
Save for Web, Q=100: 5,8Mb (same as PS/12)
1.) Why ACR saves much smaller files?
2.) Why there isn't difference when saving with thumbnail or not?
3.) Why the different methods?
4.) Is any of them better? If yes: why the other? If not: why does it exist?
Saving from ACR produces much smaller files than any other known RAW converter. I've tried Bibble, Lightroom, CaptureNX, DxO and all of them created nearly the same size as Photoshop does. So the most important question: why ACR creates so small JPG files?
Thanks in advance!

Huhh,
the question isn't stupid, just seems a little bit strange in my point of view. But you're right, i must confess. So halfway i am the stupid, not the question (and not the software).
But when i choose 'maximum' in ACR it gives me the 10, and i thought maximum is the maximum. For me it tells about the highest possible quality. There is no value bigger than the maximum.
I've never realize that in PS the way is exactly the same like in ACR! In PS the maximum is 10 too!! I'm always enter the value by the keyboard and never choose a preset. And in PS there's a slider showing the full scale and the entered value, so on that i can see that there's life after the maximum. in ACR the missing slider suggested me that 10 is the top level. But now i've entered 11 and 12 and gave the same sizes as i gave from PS with 11 and 12.
So i can conclude that the GUI of ACR isn't perfect (OK, i *must* now it uses the same engine/values like PS), but the method behind the scenes is perfect, like in PS. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for the very fast answer!

A Question about RAW and Previews

I have just recently starting shooting in RAW (mostly for the post production editing abilities - I am an avid amateur photographer bent on learning as much as I can). I set my camera to capture in RAW + L. I don't know why I feel like I want it to capture both the RAW and JPEG file, and thus leads me to my first question: Is it necessary to have the camera capture both the RAW and Large JPEG? I am assuming the answer to be no, as I am sure if after importing the RAW file into Aperture, you could always export a JPEG if you wanted one? So no need to fill up your internal memory (if using managed masters) with the extra JPEG? Is this thinking correct?
Next, if you do import RAW-only files and then want to export certain images, do you have a choice to export the original RAW image? It seems that it only allows you to export a JPEG Original Size. To answer my own question, perhaps you have to export the Master in order to export the full RAW file when exporting? If you want to export a JPEG, you have to export not the Master, but a version of the Master? Is this correct?
Lastly, I wanted to ask a question about Previews. I have my preferences set so that previews have the highest quality with no limits to size. What is the significance of setting it this way? I just assumed that if I wanted to share an image at the highest quality without exporting it, this was the way to go. Is there any validity to this? The reason I ask is that I don't want to have all of these high quality previews taking up internal disk space if I really don't need to. Is there a way to change the preview size once previews are created? Meaning, if you have it set to generate low quality previews, can you change it dynamically to high and vice versa?
I know this is a lot in one post. Thanks for tackling it.
Mac

You can change the quality of the Previews in the Preferences -> Previews tab.
You can regenerate Previews with the Delete and Update Previews under the Images menu.
Regards
TD

Elements increases JPG file size - case # 0181346249

I just asked this of Adobe. Couldn't find anything this specirfic in the forums, anyone have anything on this? Thanks in advance. Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~
On/about 12/4/09 I upgraded Elements from 6 to 8. Since that date I have discovered that the file size for all JPG files managed by Elements has been increased by 5304, 5309 or 5310 bytes. This has complicated my backup scheme, now the backup program wants to replace all said files, in excess of 16,000 pictures.
What is Elements changing?
Is this documented?
The attached JPG shows the original file on right, the Elements managed file on left. The far right column shows the file size increase.

It may be that you have the Auto-Analyzer set to run automatically, and it has added some additional metadata (EXIF) to each of your files.
The PSE 8 Auto-Analyzer has some severe problems, and I recommend that you never run it. It will corrupt your map locations, split your video clips into "scene groups" that are hard to get rid of, modify the date/time of every file, crash frequently, make your computer very sluggish, and litter your folders with temporary files:
http://www.johnrellis.com/psedbtool/photoshop-elements-faq.htm#_Problems_with_the

2 questions about RAW

I'm switching to shooting in RAW (Nikon D80) and read in The Missing Manual that the Photo Downloader in PSE7 may have trouble bringing them in from my card. Barbara suggests that there are other ways to do this and that they can be found on page 40, but I can find nothing there. So...
Does the Downloader work satisfactorily if I bring back a card with, say, 100 images on it? Or what is the best way to get them into Organizer?
After you've worked on your RAW images, what file format is best to save them as? Seems silly to save as JPEG unless they're going on the web. But what about TIFF? I see there's an option to save as Photoshop RAW.
Will appreciate any thoughts and opinions.

Hi, Jack. You can just use windows to import your photos to the computer, then use Get Photos>from Files and Folders. The problems with the downloader and raw have nothing to do with the number of images, only with the fact that people have more odd situations with raw than with other formats, particularly if you shoot raw + jpg. If you find that the downloader works for you, then it's fine to use it, but just be sure you're getting all the photos every time you download.
You can save your processed raw images in any format that the editor supports, so TIFF or PSD are both good choices. Photoshop Raw is an older Photoshop format, meaning raw PS data, not really an image format. Don't try to save anything as that.

Important conceptual question about Application Module, Maximum Pool Size

Hello everyone,
We have a critical question about the Application Module default settings (taking the DB connections from a DataSource)
I know that on the Web it is generally suggested that each request must end with either a commit or rollback when executing PL/SQL blocks "directly" on the DB without the framework BC/ViewObject/Entity service intervention.
Now, for some reasons, we started to develop our applications with thinking that each Web Session would reference exactly one DB session (opened by any instance taken from the AM pool) for the whole duration of the session, so that the changes made by each Web session to its DB session would never interfere with the changes made by "other" Web Sessions to "other" DB sessions .
In other words, because of that convincement we often implemented sort of "transactions" that open and close (with either commit or rollback) each DB session not in/after a single HTTP request, but during many HTTP Requests.
As a concrete example think of this scenario:
1. the user presses the "Insert" button. An HTTP request is fired. The action listener is executed and ends up with inserting rows in a table via a PL SQL block (not via the ViewObjects API).
2. no commit or rollback after the above PL/SQL block is done yet.
3. finally the user presses a "Commit" or "Rollback" button, firing the call to the appropriate AM methos.
Those three requests consist of what I called "transaction".
From the documentation it's clear that there is no guarantee that the couple AM istance + DB session is the same during all the requests.
This means that, during step 2, it's possible that another user might reference the same "pending" AM/DbSession for his needs and "steal" somehow the work done via PL/SQL after step 1. (This happens because sessions taken by the pool are always rolled back by default.)
Now my question is:
Suppose we set the "Maximum Pool Size" parameter to very a great number (always inferior to the maximum number of concurrent users):
Is there any guarantee that all the requests will be isolated in that case?
I hope the problem is clear.
Let me know if you want more details.

Thanks for the answers.
If I am right, from all your answers about resource avaiability, this means that even supposing the framework is able to always give us the same AM instance back from the AM pool (by following the session-affinity criterias), there is, however, no "connection affinity" with the connections from the DataSource. This means that the "same AM instance" might take the "a new DB connection", if necessary, from the connection pool of the DataSource. If that happens, that could give us the same problems as taking "a new AM instance" (that is, not following session-affinity) from the beginning, since each time an a new connection is taken (either via a new AM instance or via the same AM instance plus a new DB connection), the corresponding DB session is rolle back by default, clearing all the pending transactions we might have performed before with direct PL/SQL calls bypassing the AM services during the life cycle of our application, so that the new HTTP request will have a clean DB session to start to work with.

Question about RAW to JPG file sizes

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for