Why are my RAW files so small/ruined?

I just imported a few hundred photos from my camera into my computer using iphoto version 6.0.6.
They are now useless little 2x3" jpegs with file sizes of about 16 to 50 kb.
And of course, I used the convenient 'delete files from camera after import' feature so the originals are gone.
Please tell me my photo files aren't ruined.
gg

Hi, guy. Quite apart from resolving the present problem in iPhoto, two pieces of advice:
1. Never use the "delete images from camera after importing" option in iPhoto.
2. If your RAW files are not found anywhere in the iPhoto Library, you can almost certainly recover them from the camera's memory — but ONLY if you haven't written anything to the card since it was erased. So don't use that card again until your pictures are found or recovered. Applications made specifically for data recovery from flash memory cards include:
PhotoRescue
MediaRecover
CardRaider
There's a demo version of each.

Similar Messages

Why are my raw files being changed?

If I make changes in the Camera Raw window (i.e. change the exposure) and then "Open" it in Elements from the window, it applys those changes to the raw file, but the manual says "To open a copy of the camera raw image file (with the camera raw settings applied) in Photoshop Elements, click Open. You can edit the image and save it in a Photoshop Elements-supported format. The original camera raw file remains unaltered" - so why is it altering my original raw file?
Thankss

It isn't altering your file. Elements can't write to your raw file; it stores your changes in an xmp sidecar file, not in the original file. But if makes the reasonable assumption that the reason you made changes to your conversion settings is that you want to apply them. If you don't want to keep the changes when you open the file, then undo the ones you don't want to keep before opening the file into the editor. You are never opening your original raw file in PSE, just the converted copy.
To return to the basic elements conversion settings for the file, in the raw converter click the little lines to the right of where it says Basic in the converter window and choose Image Settings.
Here:
That's the mac version, but the location is the same in windows.

Why are my RAW files coming over grainy from Lightroom 5 to Photoshop CC

My images are transferring grainy over the last week. Any ideas why?

What camera raw file is it? Can you provide the EXIF data?
Here's the link to the possible answer:
Help! My RAW files are VERY grainy! :-(
I hope this helps.

Why are my exported files so small with lightroom 3?

I have been editing 10 mb raw files and they are no bigger than 2 mb jpegs afterwards.why is that?
i have been using presets while editing and i reset all settings at some point as my crop tool wasn't working properly.the resolution slider in the export window is at 100%, 240 pixels per inch, and everything else seems to be the way it was before.What am i doing wrong? I used to get much bigger exported files, cca 7-8 mb.

emi ion wrote:
I have just imported raw file from my camera, taken at a full resolution of 21 MP. The raw file has about 23mb and the exported jpeg without the resize to fit box ticked 7 MB. I uploaded the photo on the website and it's still not good enough for a 20''x30'' print. I am not sure if other websites accept other formats than jpeg, as this one doesn't. Not that i want to use them but it was the easiest way for me to check.
I am not sure if my client will want a canvas print, i am only assuming they might as they did in the past and i want to know what to do if that happens. I read that genuine fractals 6 pro is good, enlarges about 4 times the original size.
The ppi image resolution required for "handheld" print viewing is higher than that for pictures to be hung a wall and viewed at a distance of three feet or more.
The ppi image resolution required for a large canvas print is even lower, with good results obtainable a 100 ppi. Canvas prints have a textured surface that reduces the print resolution and doesn't require as high ppi image file. Print houses use RIP engines that process the image file for both paper profile and printer native resolution. These RIP engines use very sophisticated "upscaling" algorithms, which are as good or better than a photo editing software application such as LR and Genuine Fractals. Because of this it is advisable not to upscale image files to meet a specific printer resolution such as 300 dpi.
Your 21 mp image files (5184 x 3456) at 100 ppi equates to a 50" x 33" canvas print with edge wrap. Many print houses only accept sRGB profiled JPEG files, but exporting from LR with 100 Quality you create a virtually lossless JPEG image file. You should have no difficulty producing a high-quality canvas print from a well processed 21 mp raw image file up to 50" x 33" in size.
For enlargements on regular photo paper 150 ppi minimum is required for good results. For your 21 mp image files this equates to 35" x 23," so there should be no problem printing 20" x 30" enlargements for framed wall mount viewing.
What website gave you the "still not good enough" message for the 20" x 30" print and what is the actual resolution (???? x ????) of the JPEG file you uploaded? Reimport that JPEG file into LR to see the resolution if necessary.

Why are my raw files from my Canon 5D Mark III dim in Lightroom 4.3?

I am brand new to Lightroom, still reviewing various basic instruction videos, however I am adept in Photoshop CS5 and CS6. I have been able to import and move a file of jpegs but as I shoot jpeg/raw combo, the raw files were left behind in the original file. I can now bring them up, but they are dim and cannot appear to do anything w/them. I would like to move them to the file where I put the accompanying jpegs, but am having no success in finding an answer on how to do this. Nothing seems to activite to let me do this. Along w/this, I generally tend to work straight from camera raw files, the jpegs are generally not used, thus when LR encourages me to work on the jpegs, I'm not interested. I wish to process my raw files and only move to PS6 if I need to do some more intensive work. Can anyone offer a suggestion?

Here's my guess, based upon your description.
When the RAW photos are "dim", you are in the Import Dialog box, and the default operation of the Import is to not let you import a photo if it has been previously imported.
If that's the case, then you have misunderstood a basic operation of Lightroom. You import your photos once, and from then on, you access them via the Library Module, not the Import dialog. So, go to the Library Module and see if your RAWs are present or not.
Side comment: your workflow seems to be import then move. This is unneccessary, creating two steps for you when one will suffice. When you do the import, you also tell LR the destination where the photos should wind up (it's on the right hand side of the Import dialog box), and LR will do the import and the move in one step.

Why are my RAW files created by Vuescan so dark in Aperture?

I've been scanning images using Vuescan and saving as 16/48 bit RAW images. These images always look great in Vuescan but when I import these images into Aperture, the images are very dark. I need to do an exposure correction of +2 just to start seeing anything in the midtones. Ed Hamrick, the author of Vuescan, says this is because the RAW files have a gamma of 1.0 (coming straight of the CCD). If I save the same scan in TIFF format, the images look pretty much the same in Aperture and Vuescan.
My question is what benefits does saving in RAW bring given the large adjustments that I must make. I know I can automate the adjustments at import which might make this less of an issue but I wonder if saving in TIFF is nearly as good. Some of the pictures have a wide dynamic range with lots of shadow detail.
Any suggestions?
Thanks for any help.
Bob

My frustration has been that I am doing the processing twice which is pointless. I need to choose a workflow. Mind you that if Apple supported the full DNG specification, it would be able to deal automatically with these RAW scanned DNG files (I believe they are linear DNGs) and automatically compensate during import just as Lightroom does. I am using the trial version of Aperture - which I feel really comfortable using - but I think I may take Lightroom for a spin prior to making a final choice of software.
As I tried to clarify, there is no benefit in saving as RAW from a scanner. Just save as a normal 16-bit TIFF and you'll and up with a simplified workflow and no loss of data nor detail. Actually, a DNG is internally just a TIFF.
Mind you that if Apple supported the full DNG specification, it would be able to deal automatically with these RAW scanned DNG files (I believe they are linear DNGs) and automatically compensate during import just as Lightroom does. I am using the trial version of Aperture - which I feel really comfortable using - but I think I may take Lightroom for a spin prior to making a final choice of software.
If Apple fully-supported the DNG specification, then the RAW Fine Tuning adjustment would be available with its auto-exposure button to get a good starting point for tweaking the images.
You could provide Apple with feedback via, Aperture>Provide Aperture Feedback.
If I continue with Aperture, I am thinking that I will save these files as RAW TIFFs and do the gamma adjustment at import. This should streamline the workflow by making it possible to scan two 4x5s at one without the need to tweak each one in the scan and then do all my processing in Aperture (or Lightroom). I will just trust the scanner.
You shouldn't trust your scanner, just as you shouldn't always trust matrix metering or 'I'll fix that in post". Aiming for the best starting material is aiming for the best results. So instead, carefully examine each scan, which will not take you that long BTW.
I will still create the scanner profile of the IT8 target which I should then be able to use as a proofing profile to compensate for any color bias in the Fuji Provia film used. Perhaps I am wrong about this.
Actually, you're wrong on this. The IT8 provides an input profile, and not an output profile or working space. Imagine scanning a slide and printing it. Softproofing for IT8, then you can't softproof for your printer and vice versa.
Your post has allowed me to really think through my workflow and I really appreciate the input I've received in this thread. Now, I just wish I could get Apple to add support for Linear DNG (or whatever format Vuescan RAW DNG is which I know contains three colors per pixel rather then one as in Camera Raw) which would provide the additional tools to deal with these DNGs at import.
Although linear DNG support would indeed be nice for unsupported camera's, it is not necessary here. If Vuescan DNG has three channels, than it is a TIFF. (since demosiacing MUST have been applied, there are no scanners with a Foveon sensor as of yet)
Well to cut a very long story short just use TIFF for scans. It's a necessity for proper colormanagement and will simplify your workflow.

Why are my RAW files looking like infrared?

Hi All,
I use Aperture frequently for my editing - just recently had a ridiculous problem that results in my RAW files looking infrared.
Have I enabled only a red channel or something?? Please help! See pic!

Wow, what a silly oversight - I knew I had had an update to do, but hadnt bothered with it yet. Thanks a bunch Ernie, I should have thought of us.
Much appreciated.

Why are my Jpg files so small after being saved from Nef

Hi,
I am finally posting after months of trying to figure out why my images are saving so small, some 4mb after converting from Nef to Jpg.
I am shooting with a Nikon D4s and came from a D800. I was spoilt with really large file sizes and now I am freaking out because my jpegs are so small.
I am checking all the right boxes as far as I can see to save the jpg as large as I can, and I am not cropping the images before saving as Jpg.
Has anyone else had this problem? I can't understand why a camera as amazing as the D4s is giving me such small files. I have read everywhere that my files need to be over 6mb to be classed as high res.
The only thing that I can think of is maybe I am pushing my nefs too hard in camera raw/lightroom resulting in a loss of quality? Although my exposure is correct 90% of the time so Im only playing with highlights or luminance.
Can anyone walk me through the process of what I should be doing so I can end this headache!
Thanks in advance!

ashleyp1563 wrote:
Images are 16pm (4928x3280px as you say), and the doc is 48mb.
So here's where I really show myself up... am I right in assuming that the more adobe compresses an image the lower the mb is on the final file, meaning if there is less detail (i.e. the low-key image is predominately black) then the jpeg will be smaller. Does this affect the print quality?
4mb seems very low res to me. How can I retain as much of the information as possible? Do you think I should sharpen more to retain detail? Or does it even matter and I'm fretting over nothing!
Okay. The file dimensions are fine, so we're talking purely about content and compression.
As I already said, the low-key image contains very little data in the first place (lots of black and no colour), so it compresses well. The dreamy woman image contains a lot of plain blue sky and out-of-focus background, so that compresses well too. No surprises there.
Have you got any more detailed images with greater depth of field? Try creating a JPEG of that and see how big the file is.
An Adobe JPEG Quality setting of 12 means minimum compression and therefore maximum file size. But, even so, if you saved an image which was just a single plain colour, you would find that the resulting JPEG would be just a few kB. This is how compression works.
The lower the quality number is set, the higher the compression, the more detail is lost, and the more JPEG artefacts are created in the image. You are already saving at 12 quality, which is the highest setting, so you are minimising any problems with detail. You should save as TIFF if you want absolutely no loss of detail, but the file sizes are much bigger.
4MB is not a resolution. Think of it as packing a suitcase. If you're taking lots of books, you won't get the lid down. If you're taking lots of soft woollen sweaters, you can take lots. 4MB is an indication of the space that your packed image takes—if it's made of light fluffy stuff then it will be a smaller suitcase! :-)
You should sharpen your images the same as any other. Large areas of plain or out-of-focus background need not be sharpened. You're okay. Stop worrying!

Why are my exported files not going to me email? I have used 3 different ones.

Why are my exported files not going to my email (receipts & business card)? I have used 3 different ones...2 yahoo and 1 hotmail. I have checked spam box also.

For the Receipts app I chose to export the info as a PDF file..an email was requested..I entered info and clicked send. For the Business Card app I chose Send, not Print..an email was requested..I entered info and clicked send. I haven't received anything, not even in my spam folder.

Why are ACR PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD?

Why are ACR > PSD files 10-20 percent larger than the same file resaved in PSD? I posted this many years ago and never found an answer. Now that my drives fill up quicker, I thought I might chase this question a little bit further.
Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.
Why the difference? Is ACR and PSD actually using different compression strategies?
thanks.
Mac 10.8.5 / CC / ACR 8.4.1 - but this has been a consistent behavior over many years and versions, CS6 / CC.
Same .CR2 saved within ACR either with cmd-R or open ACR within PSD, the saved file is 34.5mb. Resave that same file (no edits) within PSD either with or without Max-compatible and the file is now 30.7mb. Another file that is 24.5 becomes 19.5MB.

Hi Jeff
If it is RLE it's not as efficient as LZW:
Saved ACR>PSD = 40.1MB (sample image this AM)
opened in PS and resaved as PSD = 30.8MB
resaved as TIF without LZW = 40.1MB (this adds to your thought that the ACR>PSD doesn't us any compression)
resaved as TIF/LZW = 9.6MB
Jeff Schewe wrote:
I really think your priorities are a bit off. 10-20% is meaningless...you just need to get bigger.... and quit fussing over a few GB's here or there...
??? I hope that the Adobe engineers are fussing over 10-20% efficiencies.
I'm within arms reach to a rack of 40TB of drives (doesn't include off-site drives), and all 2TB drives are being recycled to 4TB drives, as a result the rack is always growing. Actually the ACR>PSD files don't really make a difference in our long term storage, only for the nightly backups. But anyway, how you save, what you save etc. should all be part of the discussion.
.... so in my case, throw in an excess MB here and there and all of a sudden you are talking TB's. Plus advantages in backup times, drive life, and energy use.
Somebody added compression into the PS>PSD format, but it wasn't included in the ACR>PSD format, was it a decision or an oversight? If it's just a matter of making ACR compatible with PS when saving the same PSD format..... then why not?
regards,
j

Why are my RAW format files no longer supported?

Using a Mac OS X 10.5.8 with versions of Adobe Photoshop CS5, Adobe Bridge CS5 and Camera Raw Plug-in.
Shot .CR2 raw format photos on my Canon EOS 450D (Same as Rebel XSi)
Have always been able to open them successfully in Camera Raw and Photoshop. Now says that the files and/or my camera model/make is not supported by the Camera Raw Plug-in nor by my Photoshop.
Tried converting to DNG first with Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 and even that says that the source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files.
Previous raw files taken with the same camera on the same computer with the same (or even earlier) versions of all these programs have always worked. I can still open those successfully too. However just these new ones I cannot. Nothing has changed about my camera in that time...
What can I do and why is it that these files are no longer supported?

ACR 6.7 and ACR 7.1 RC can open XSi CR2 files at least on Windows 7. I just checked.
However, on Windows, at least, the DNGC 7.1 RC has a quirk in that when you want to convert a folder of CR2s to DNGs, you have to click the Select button when the folder is highlighted in the file selection dialog and the folder listed in the location area of the file selection dialog. You cannot click INTO the folder and then click Select, which sounds like what you are doing. If you do click into the folder and click Select it’ll say there are no compatible files that exist. I think previous versions of the DNGC would recover properly if you clicked into the folder before clicking Select.
Since your files cannot be opened in ACR, either, then perhaps they are corrupted. You might post a download link to one of them in a message here so others can have a look. If you don’t have a large file hosting service, then set up a free account on www.dropbox.com or www.yousendit.com or similar, upload your file, there, then post the public download link, here, in a reply.

Why are the DNG files from my RW2 raw files are so large (37MB)?

I have a fairly new Panasonic Lumix LX5. I've recently converted a few files to DNG.
They're turning out to be @ 37MB, over three times larger than the original file.
I'm not embedding the original raw files in the DNG.
NEF files I convert from my Nikon D2x are around 9.5MB.
I'm running Mac OS 10.5.8, DNG v 6.6 and also use PS CS5.5 and Lightroom 3.0.
Any ideas??

Thanks R_Kelly!
I was using the DNG converter app.
I just tried converting a RW2 raw file by saving it in from the ACR window in CS5 with your recommended settings:
Compatibility 5.4 and later
Jpeg preview:medium size
without orginal raw file embedded.
This yielded a 9.7MB DNG file. Yeah!!
So I went back and tried a couple using the DNG converter app.
With compatbility set to 4.6 & later, the converted files are 37MB.
But with compatiblity set to 5.4 & later files are 9.7 MB.
This is the same when using either the app or from ACR.
So the difference here is the compatiblity setting.
Does anyone know why this happens??

Why are my RAW dng files opening in photoshop as 8 bit?

I am shootng on the canon 5 D Mark II.
On other Mark II camera bodies that I used in the past, the dng files are 16 bit. Why are mine 8 bit, and how can I change it IN CAMERA to 16 bit (I know how to convert it in photoshop,)
thanks

DNG is an Adobe standard which stands for "Digital NeGative". Adobe supports the format and have also contributed it as an open standard (free to use, they provide free DNG converters, they also state that it's "royalty free" if you were a developer and wanted to include the standard in a product, etc.)
You can find more information on it (and download Adobe's own free DNG converter software) here: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.edu.html
And while it's supported by several companies even outside Adobe, it isn't adopted by Canon or Nikon -- they continue to create files in their own formats (.cr2 for Canon and .nef for Nikon).
Are you using Adobe's DNG Converter or something else?
JPEG is an 8-bit format (there is no option for anything other than 8-bit if you shoot JPEG).
CR2 (Canon RAW) is a 14-bit format on your specific camera.
If you shoot RAW and copy the CR2 files to your computer, you've got 14-bit data (there is no option on your camera to change the bit-depth.) There are options to shoot in alternate RAW formats such as S-RAW1 & S-RAW2 (don't use those if what you _really_ want is "RAW").
Canon "Digital Photo Professional" (aka "DPP") came on the media CD bundled with your camera and can open all formats that your camera can create... but 3rd party software wont necessarily support all the formats. Everyone, of course, supports JPEG. RAW is supported via RAW updates from the some vendors (e.g. Adobe provides RAW updates but usually only for their latest versions of software). The S-RAW formats are often not supported by 3rd parties.
It looks like RAW support for the 5D II was added in Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) v5.2. That was back in the days of Photoshot CS4. If you have CS4 or later (or any version of Lightroom) and you keep up with the "Adobe Camera RAW" updates then Photoshop would be able to open the Canon .CR2 files from your camera in their native format and would not need to have them converted to ".DNG" format.
Canon DPP will allow you to convert your RAW files into TIFF (which is also a non-lossy format).
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Why are my RAW images grainy on some devices after saving as JPG files?

I am new to the world of photography, so forgive me if my question is silly.
I just recently started shooting in RAW format. After editing my photos and saving them as JPG files, I am running into a problem. When I view the image files on my computer, my iPad, or my iPhone, they look great. I can even zoom in super close, and the images still retain amazing quality. However, when I set them as a desktop background, they are SUPER grainy. Here is an example. I just took a screen grab of each one on my computer. Here is the first one, which is the file itself when opened in Microsoft Office 2010.
Here is the screen grab of the same exact same file when I set it as a background on my computer:
Is this an issue with processing/editing/whatever the technical term may be? Or, is this a computer display issue? I could almost understand if the images were different files, but they are the same file. Can anyone help me out? I have a friend who wants me to take some photos for her this weekend, and I'm scared to shoot in RAW format for this reason, although I do enjoy the control I have over my images in that format. I'm also scared to see what my photos look like when printed.
Thanks in advance!

It’s really impossible to make a judgment from screen grabs. But how are you making the desktop background; ideally you should be using the original to make a re-sized image at the native resolution of your monitor.

Why is my Raw file shrinking so much when I save it as a JPEG file?

Why does my file size shrinks from a raw file of over 12MB to a large Jpeg file of less than 6MB. Several weeks ago when I converted the same raw file I was ending up with a JPEG file of over 9MB. What am I doinf wrong? How can I correct this? I am using Elements 9.

Because JPGs are compressed, the JPG file size is not a meaningful indicator of image quality or "doing something wrong". You are advised to ignore it.

Why are my RAW files so small/ruined?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for