hi all! when i convert my raw files to jpegs(for stock photo requirements only),the jpegs are much smaller than my in camera jpegs(i have panasonic DMC L1 that shoot both raw and jpeg) don’t understand why a jpegs converted from raw is only 2 or 3 megs,when when my camera native resolution is 7.5 megapixels? the jpeg from the camera is around 6 to 7 megapixels,but the jpeg converted from raw is only 2 or 3 megapixel. help! i’m lost. thanks
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
JPEGs are comprtessed with lossy compression. Every time you save a JPEG the image deteriorates.
How bad the loss of quality image is and how much smaller the JPEG gets depends on the degree of compression you use when saving.
In the Camera Raw dialog box, click on the underlined blue line of links that appear right under the preview of your image. This will bring up the ACR output options. Make sure you choose the option that does NOT have either a minus or a plug size, to open your image in Photoshop.
Once in Photoshop, your image exists only in RAM, so you have to save it, in your case as a JPEG since that’s what they’re asking you for. Make sure you choose the maximum quality there as well. This will minimize (not eliminate) the degradation of the image.
thanks! but all that i know already(i’m not new to photoshop) never use these jpegs more than once,but the problem remain non understood and unexplained. why are the jpegs from raw half the size than the jpegs from the camera? anyone please?
Because they’re not being converted at the same quality, or maybe not at the same size. You can figure it out. It might even be the algorithm, progressive or baseline or optimized.
Read post #1 again. The answers are there, either way, whether you’re reducing the pixels dimensions in ACR or compressing the hell out of JPEGs in Photoshop.
thanks again! have that book,and the ACR output options are set up the way you mention. but where the file size is 7.4 MP in the ACR window,the resulting jpeg file size,saved at maximum quality compression(12),baseline,is only 3 to 5MP. that is what i don’t understand. save from raw to jpeg with maximum quality(12),baseline,only and always(since photoshop6)when i do have to create a jpeg(all my personal file are saved as tiff or PSD) my camera resolution is 7.5 MP,so the jpegs are around 6 to 7.5 MP from the camera.(panasonic DMC L1) it is wise to mention that i have had these issues only since upgrading to CS3. so thanks all,but still no answer here. thanks anyway! best!
Resolution (pixel Dimension) is described as MegaPixels (MP) File size is MegaBytes (MB). It is hard to understand your question… it seems like you use the terms interchangeably. Also realize there is an "open" file size and a "closed" file size. Again, two different things.
Also, keep in mind, as mentioned by Neil, you have to compare apples to apples with closed JPEG files. Detail in the image can cause a very big difference in compressed file size, with same res pics saved at same jpg compression.
And… use Upper Case "I" to avoid posting in italics…
And don’t confuse MB with MP (megabytes with megapixels). And it all can be confusing.
My Nikon D80 takes images that are 3884×2594 pixels — that works out to 10.1 million (mega) pixels per sensor color.
But, the Nikon-native NEF file could be, say, 9.2 MB. When I run that file through ACR, it becomes a 7.8 MB DNG file. That in turn becomes a 28.7 MB TIFF file. Or a 27.3 MB PSD. Or a 48.8 MB EPS. Or a 7 MB 12-quality JPEG. And I’ve done no editing other than saving to different file types. And the only one that has lost information is the JPEG.
thanks all,i guess my question was as confusing as i am confused… to make it short,here it is: a jpeg straight out of my camera is 5 MB in size(on my disk) the jpeg converted from raw is 2.6 MB in size(on my disk) how can i have both at the same size on my disk? i’m talking about the exact same picture(my camera shoot both raw and jpeg. again,saved at the lowest compression/highest quality available(12) and,…Lundberg02,i’m asking a question here,not making a statement,so you’re answer to me as "you don’t know what you are talking about" is not helping and not necessary… thank you all for the effort to answer my rather confusing question.
I give up… I don’t want to have BOTH on my disk,just the same SIZE on my disk(wether it’s jpeg straight from camera or saved from raw),my stock photo agency is very strict about minimum size for a file. that’s all. thank u all anyway for taking the time to answer my confusing question.
Stock agencies are almost always interested in your uncompressed file size – the size you see when you have the file open in Photoshop and go to Image Size. Make sure you understand exactly what they require. Most of them will deliver jpegs, but they’re interested in minimum pixel dimensions, not compressed file sizes on disc.
You are chasing something that is probably not attainable without some testing. You camera and your software use completely different algorhthms for compressing their respective jpegs. You should be more concerned with oveall image quality and whether your images have objectionable jpeg artifacting than absolute file size.
my stock photo agency is very strict about minimum size for a file
Aren’t they concerned with keeping the "size on disk" small (while keeping the pixel dimensions large)?
To answer your question, you could save as an non-optimized JPG and see if that helps with the file size. Or embed the biggest profile you can find. Or maybe find a way to fill up the headers with garbage??
I cannot understand why a stock agency would want a large "size on disk" EVER, except if they’re charging you for disk space. In that case, it all sounds like a pyramid scheme to me.
so you’re answer to me as "you don’t know what you are talking about" is not helping and not necessary…
What Lundberg and others are saying is that you are mixing up megapixels with megabytes.
I don’t want to have BOTH on my disk,just the same SIZE on my disk(wether it’s jpeg straight from camera or saved from raw),my stock photo agency is very strict about minimum size for a file.
As Peter says. Talk with your agency until you understand exactly what they want and how they measure that. It’s not really complicated, but we don’t want you to waste your time preparing files incorrectly.
I’m currently undergoing the same phenomena as Luc. While he’s expressing what’s factually happening, he doesnt really explain why its odd. It may be better explained like this:
When operating with a raw file opened in camera raw, and saved using the adobe camera raw dialogue, with the "quality" slider set to maximum, and with the dialogue options in "workflow options" set to a desired result, the filesize does not match the "save as" command within CS3, at the same settings.
Its not merely a small size variation..for instance, my raw files shot from a 5D using the "save image" command in camera raw results in a 1.5mb sized file, at a set of particular "worflow options" settings. In contrast, opening the file using "open object" from camera raw into CS3, then saving it using CS3’s dialogue options mirroring the same settings from Camera raw results in a 6mb + file size.
The logical disparity, then, must be in how the save algorithms in Camera Raw and CS3 differ. Since we all know that smaller jpgs generally mean greater compression which means loss of information, its probably always better to open it in CS3, then save. A pity, since the workflow is so much faster without having to leave Bridge/Camera Raw.
Can anyone shed any insight on this? Particularly, if they have printed images using the CS3 "save as" command as compared to a jpg processed from raw from Camera Raw?
Kevin to honest I don’t shoot jpegs only RAW. I would guess that most of the pros that shoot that frequent this forum also shoot RAW. The only time I save a jpeg is when I need to save an image for a website. everything else I save is either a PSD or a tiff.
I would guess ( I may have already said this) that the compression algorithms in the camera are not so drastic as to keep as much data as possible.
Mass storage is cheap today. Any modern camera that captures RAW (except Nikon’s ridiculous point-and-shoot .NRW format) should be used that way in lieu of JPEG if the intent is to go to stock photography.
I have the same issue. It’s not that I am concerned about storage space. It’s that I am concerned I am losing quality somewhere–because I have always related quality to file size. I can take a RAW file (CR2), open it in bridge, then Save Image from the Bridge/ACR interface as a 10-quality .jpg and it takes a RAW file from around 11MB way down to 1.8MB. But I can open the same RAW file directly in Photoshop, Save As a 12-quality .jpg and I get a file that’s around 5.5MB. Why such a huge difference in file size?
First, a 10-quality .jpg image is going to be smaller than a 12-quality .jpg. The lower the quality, the more image information is permanently purged from the file when saving. Remember, .jpg files are ALWAYS lossy.
Do you have a reason why you need to save your raw images as .jpg? Sure, for Web and email, family sharing, no problem. But, your master images should always be left as raw, and your master working files should be left as .psd files (or another non-lossy format, like .tif or .tif with lzw compression).
Yes, 10 is the max setting in Bridge, so that’s why I went with it. I had assumed that, even though it’s not 12, that Max in Bridge/ACR would equal the Max in PS.
My reason for wanting a high-res .jpg (which I seem to get when I avoid the Bridge/ACR Save Image step) is so that I may provide my clients with a high-res file format they can easily view, distribute and print (often using an online service that requires an upload–and usually printing small 4X6 or 5X7 sizes) themselves. (Many of my clients are extremely un-savvy when it comes to computers–I fear a TIFF file might create problems for them.) Providing clients high-res .jpgs is very common among wedding photographers. I typically provide clients with around 1,000 images.
Yes, I always create a master DVD of the RAW images as my digital negatives.
And just to reiterate my point, I was concerned about the difference between the RAW to .JPG conversion using Bridge as compared to using PS. I guess what I wanted was a way to batch process my RAW files in Bridge/ACR, but get the quality I seem to get (if in fact this difference in file size between the Bridge/ACR conversion and the one-at-a-time PS conversion IS a quality difference) when I open the file in PS and Save As a .jpg.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree, that for your audience, .jpgs are probably a better solution. Without the knowledge of the .jpg specifics (and unless someone can fill you in better than I can), I would suggest making three .jpgs of a highly detailed portion of the same photo, then magnify on screen and compare:
1 (via Bridge/ACR) at 10-quality 1 (via Photoshop) at 10-quality 1 (via Photoshop) at 12-quality
I had assumed that, even though it’s not 12, that Max in Bridge/ACR would equal the Max in PS.
As you have learned, "maximum" in Adobe-speak refers to a range. The numerical jpeg settings are more accurate within that range. When using JPEG only JPEG-12 should be used unless the purpose will never, ever include print. And one never really knows what a pic may end being used for, so I make it a habit never to deliver anything less than 12 unless someone is paying me specifically to intentionally reduce quality.
JPEG-12 used as a final save is actually quite excellent for delivery to amateur clients. Prints of well-shot images saved in the last step as JPEG-12 are visually equal to prints from lossless files. I try to deliver two folders of image files; one lossless for pro usage and one saved as JPEG-12 for amateur users’ convenience.
Well, I think so. I’m opening the RAW files within Bridge. Making some adjustments (usually white balance, exposure, fill or recover) then using the Save Image button in the lower left corner of the window.
Sounds about right to me. I wonder why Bridge’s RAW conversion Max Quality doesn’t match Photoshop? Seems… like a missed opportunity for more utility from Bridge. I REALLY like the way I can view, compare, tweak and save multiple files within Bridge. It’s interface is FAR superior to Canon’s RAW-ware (DPP). But, as you have pointed out, I need my .jpgs to be max-quality so that my customers, who can be extremely picky (and rightfully so–given the money they have paid me), are 100% satisfied with their images.
My Bridge-converted Max Quality .jpgs are now commensurate with the conversion using PS. So, my 7.38MB CR2 file was converted to a 4.2MB .jpg after manually setting the quality in Bridge to 12, as opposed to the 10 setting which (why in the heck) Bridge sets to 10 if ya just select Max from the pull-down. Converting the same RAW image in PS also yielded a 4.2MB file.
Thank you very much (I can now resume my batch processing using Bridge),
you can select a folders worth of RAW files choose save as Jpeg and type in 12 for quality. you can also add an action if you want to. It will save the jpegs to a new folder. All at the push of a button.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
