Issue with Exporting High Res Files

[weepete]

I must admit I'm not sure where that might be, as I said I don't do it myself. I'm just thinking that if those .RAW files are showing up that small that something is happening. It does not appear to be your export settings so in my head that only really leaves two options either in camera or on import to lightroom. If it's definatley not a camera setting then there must be some kind of menu in lightroom that's doing it.

 

[Derrel]

I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!

 

[tirediron]

I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!

JPG, & set to "small, basic"?

 

[Derrel]

But is your file manager still showing the image as 1024 x 683?

Another issue is that the file names you show make me think the image out of the camera is a small JPG file. Are you shooting in both JPG and RAW? Are you only importing the RAW files into LR? Did you import the small JPG files made by the camera and edit those images and then rename them on export?

Agree with Dave on this 110 percent...defintely, one really does want to have the operating system SHOW the file extension of the files!!! I wondered this myself...I see file names, but no extensions...and I see larger files and smaller ones.

 

[KmH]

Yep.
1024 x 683 bit depth 24 is the JPEG Basic embedded in the Raw file.
That JPEG Basic is embedded in the Raw file so the camera has something it can show the photographer on the rear LCD of the camera.
It's also what Windows shows before the Raw file is edited and what LR shows as it builds the catalog file.

Screen shot #4 is the edited file.
While the Raw file from a D810 is a 12-bit depth or 14-bit depth file depending on your camera settings, screen shot #4 is an 8-bit depth file.
8-bits each and 3 color channels = 24 bits. So a 12-bit depth file would be shown by the Windows file manager as a 36 bit file - 3 color channels of 12-bits each.

Looking at the photo you posted, I highly recommend using supplemental light for fill and accent when the light direction and quality are less than flattering to your subjects.

 

[BareFeetPhotography]

I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!

JPG, & set to "small, basic"?

The Image Quality on the camera is set to RAW and has been since I purchased it in September.

 

[BareFeetPhotography]

Yep.
1024 x 683 bit depth 24 is the JPEG Basic embedded in the Raw file.
That JPEG Basic is embedded in the Raw file so the camera has something it can show the photographer on the rear LCD of the camera.
It's also what Windows shows before the Raw file is edited and what LR shows as it builds the catalog file.

Screen shot #4 is the edited file.
While the Raw file from a D810 is a 12-bit depth or 14-bit depth file depending on your camera settings, screen shot #4 is an 8-bit depth file.
8-bits each and 3 color channels = 24 bits. So a 12-bit depth file would be shown by the Windows file manager as a 36 bit file - 3 color channels of 12-bits each.

Looking at the photo you posted, I highly recommend using supplemental light for fill and accent when the light direction and quality are less than flattering to your subjects.

What I'm understanding is that the JPEG files were imported and converted to .DNG, most likely due to a setting in the camera, and that's what I've been editing and exporting from Lightroom?
I'm still confused about the size of the .DNG files in my backup folders, compared to the size of the JPEG files after export. Based on my basic understanding, it looks like there should be enough data in the original file (30 MB) to be able to edit and export and image around 5-8 MB, at least. I know I'm not using the correct terminology and if there's something else that I can screenshot that would be helpful, please let me know!

I appreciate the feedback on the photo, but at this point my main concern is knowing if this is something that can be corrected using the backup files that I have saved, and how can I correct it going forward.

 

[BareFeetPhotography]

But is your file manager still showing the image as 1024 x 683?

Another issue is that the file names you show make me think the image out of the camera is a small JPG file. Are you shooting in both JPG and RAW? Are you only importing the RAW files into LR? Did you import the small JPG files made by the camera and edit those images and then rename them on export?

Agree with Dave on this 110 percent...defintely, one really does want to have the operating system SHOW the file extension of the files!!! I wondered this myself...I see file names, but no extensions...and I see larger files and smaller ones.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...

 

[astroNikon]

I'm curious how this is going to get sorted out.

but you may want to:
Take new test shots
Login to your computer as a different user (as this, at least on my computer, does not bring over any defaults for LightRoom import, etc )
Then run through the process of the NEF file to JPEG
then run a test of the DNG converted file to JPEG.
and write down and compare each file specification as you go through it.

 

[BareFeetPhotography]

I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!

I should clarify that the file properties in the screen shot are from the .DNG files, not the RAW files. Someone else mentioned that it isn't necessary to Convert to .DNG upon Import to LR, and now I definitely see how that can backfire because now I don't seem to have the RAW files that I assumed were backed up all along. Is there a way to enlarge these so they would be suitable for print? I can change my camera and LR settings going forward, but I'm really trying to salvage all the photos I've taken and converted to .DNG in the last couple months.

 

[KmH]

You do not need to change the file type from DNG.
No. You can't just up-res a 1024 x 683 (low image resolution) photo and make a high quality print out of it.

If you don't already have them I highly recommend you get and keep handy for reference:
The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers
The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop (2nd Edition)
The Digital Print: Preparing Images in Lightroom and Photoshop for Printing
Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)
The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC / Lightroom 6 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers
And get the CC 2017 version (recently released) of this when it comes out if you use Photoshop CC:
Adobe Photoshop CC for Photographers: 2016 Edition - Version 2015.5

 

[Piccell]

The software will only do what it is told, even if you tell it nothing, it has a default. Somewhere you are telling it to output the file in that size.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

The software will only do what it is told,
even if you tell it nothing, it has a default. Somewhere you are telling it to output the file in that size.

Good first assumption, but with years in software development management behind me, I suggest that when this much effort is expended to find operator error, it is time to consider the code! With updates, there can be new bugs.
did you recently upgrade?
do you have another computer with Lightroom installed?
I believe Lightroom is cloud-based only, so these typical first questions may be moot. Only Adobe can address this change.

If your computer has settings for cloud access you might find a difference by accessing from a different computer.

Because you are using it for work, I strongly suggest getting Adobe to help you. I consider their support to address surprises like this to be part of your yearly rental fee.

p.s. Don't ever accept a response, "you are the only one who complained" because MOST companies do a horrible job of collecting and organizing customer complaints. You can test them by creating a second complaint and when they say this, ask them if they see your other complaint...