Jpeg compression??

MayPhoto · Jan 19, 2015

Hello all,

I had a delightful time photographing 4 One year olds celebrating in a Cake Smash Photoshoot with a new 3 Strobe light set up! Shots look great and the lighting is amazing! Yeah for a new home studio! Now here's my problem....My RAW files are compressing down too far during a JPEG save.

I shoot with a Nikon D7100.
I use Photoshop Elements 12 for editing.

I've never had this problem before. The original RAW files are around 28-30 MB and the JPEG are somewhere down to 6 MB. That is too much..I would like to offer the clients the option of large, clear prints.

I did everything the same as always and never had this issue before. I thought perhaps I was editing too far so tried saving just the RAW's as is and same problem.

Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted. I'm flummoxed!

Cheers in advance!

Melissa

Tinderbox (UK) · Jan 19, 2015

Do you not have more than one jpeg compression level like fine, normal or basic when you select the photo format in the menu select fine, the text below is from the D7100 file specifications.

John.

File format

NEF (RAW): 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed or compressed

JPEG: JPEG-Baseline compliant with fine (approx. 1:4), normal (approx. 1:8) or basic (approx. 1:16) compression (Size priority); Optimal quality compression available

NEF (RAW)+JPEG: Single photograph recorded in both NEF (RAW) and JPEG formats

Vtec44 · Jan 19, 2015

Why not look at the actual quality of the JPEG instead of file size ?

MayPhoto · Jan 19, 2015

Tinderbox (UK) said:
Do you not have more than one jpeg compression level like fine, normal or basic when you select the photo format in the menu select fine, the text below is from the D7100 file specifications.

John.

File format

NEF (RAW): 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed or compressed

JPEG: JPEG-Baseline compliant with fine (approx. 1:4), normal (approx. 1:8) or basic (approx. 1:16) compression (Size priority); Optimal quality compression available

NEF (RAW)+JPEG: Single photograph recorded in both NEF (RAW) and JPEG formats

Click to expand...

Hi John,

Yes I do have those options and chose 'NEF (RAW): 14 bit, lossless compressed'.

I realise now that I wrote 'i did everything the same as always'. Choosing 'lossless compressed' is new one for me. Do you have any experience with this causing too much Jpeg compression?

TIA

480sparky · Jan 19, 2015

If you can print a 16x20 from a JPEG, who cares what the file size is?

480sparky · Jan 19, 2015

MayPhoto said:
Yes I do have those options and chose 'NEF (RAW): 14 bit, lossless compressed'.

I realise now that I wrote 'i did everything the same as always'. Choosing 'lossless compressed' is new one for me. Do you have any experience with this causing too much Jpeg compression?

TIA

You won't get any more detail or resolution from the raw file than you will from the JPEG. What you gain is the ability to do more heavy-handed edits with a raw file.

Tinderbox (UK) · Jan 19, 2015

Lossless compress is for the RAW file not the jpeg. all the jpegs are compress by varying degrees depending on your selection.

I have seen comparisons between compressed RAW and normal uncompressed and the difference is only slight and that`s looking at 100% , if you are low on storage space use compressed.

John.

MayPhoto · Jan 19, 2015

Vtec44 said:
Why not look at the actual quality of the JPEG instead of file size ?

That's a good point. Thank you. Viewed at 100% the quality of the JPEG is good and clear. I just worry that if The Mothers of the babes wanted to print say a large (16x20 or larger) the quality would be low. Any experience with large prints? I've never gone bigger than a 10X12 myself.

MayPhoto · Jan 19, 2015

All very good points. Thank you. I will keep all of this in mind. Just when you think you know a lot you realised you know NOTHING! I appreciate the wisdom!

Light Guru · Jan 19, 2015

MayPhoto said:
The original RAW files are around 28-30 MB and the JPEG are somewhere down to 6 MB. That is too much..I would like to offer the clients the option of large, clear prints.

JPEG compression has nothing to do with getting large clear prints. Large clear prints are about pixel dimension and not the compression.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008392/article/100-in-100-Size-Matters

MayPhoto · Jan 19, 2015

Light Guru said:
MayPhoto said:

The original RAW files are around 28-30 MB and the JPEG are somewhere down to 6 MB. That is too much..I would like to offer the clients the option of large, clear prints.

Click to expand...

JPEG compression has nothing to do with getting large clear prints. Large clear prints are about pixel dimension and not the compression.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008392/article/100-in-100-Size-Matters

Thanks very much. Good reference article. Cheers.

JerryVenz · Jan 19, 2015

Light Guru said:
MayPhoto said:

The original RAW files are around 28-30 MB and the JPEG are somewhere down to 6 MB. That is too much..I would like to offer the clients the option of large, clear prints.

Click to expand...

JPEG compression has nothing to do with getting large clear prints. Large clear prints are about pixel dimension and not the compression.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008392/article/100-in-100-Size-Matters

Exactly! I have MANY display prints on my walls ( over 50 ) and most were done from JPEGS that were 6MB or SMALLER from my older cameras. I have two beautiful 30x40" canvas wraps from 2.17MB files that were done with my old Fuji Pro-S2 cameras.

For example one of my award winning images that was published in the Fuji Annual Portrait book, taken with the Fuji Pro S2, was a 4.33MB JPEG--2016x3024 at 300ppi--and I made a 24x30" display print that is stunning!

These days with my Canon 5D-MKII:

My RAW files are 28.17 MB (3744x5616)

My average JPEG's are 13 to 18MB

With cropping they can end-up at 6.27MB (2550x3301 at 300ppi).

It matters little if the files are 13MB, 18MB, or 6MB JPEGS from this camera--they all look great!

Jerry W. Venz M.Photog.Cr.CPP

KmH · Jan 19, 2015

Many confuse file size with pixel dimensions (image resolution).
Many also do not understand how image resolution relates to print resolution - pixels per inch or PPI.

Prints cannot be made from Raw files. Raw files have to be converted to some printable format like JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc.

a 4.33MB JPEG--2016x3024 at 300ppi--and I made a 24x30" display print

Is an impossibility.
2016 px by 3024 px @ 300 ppi would make a 7.02 inch by 10.08 inch print.

To make a 24x30 inch print from a photo that has image resolution of 2016 x 3024 pixels would require cropping some off the long side and requires a ppi setting of 100.8 (101 rounded off) ppi.
3024 pixels divided by 30 inches = 100.8 pixel per inch.
2016 px divided buy 100.8 ppi = 20 inches. Not 24 inches.

3024 x 2016 is a 3:2 aspect ratio. The long side is 1.5x longer than the short side.
30 x 24 is a 5:4 aspect ratio. The long side is 1.25x longer than the short side, which is why the long side of a 3:2 aspect ratio photo would have to be cropped to make a 5:4 aspect ratio print.
Once cropped, making a 24 x 30 print would require a ppi of 84, not 300.

dennybeall · Jan 19, 2015

Wanted to try to answer the question but wonder what your process is for getting pictures from the camera to the computer? You take the shots in raw, then remove the card from camera and put it in the pc or do you hook up with a cord and download the raw to the pc? At what point do you do the conversion to jpg?
I use Bridge and Photoshop so not familiar with the 7100 and Elements.

snerd · Jan 19, 2015

What Keith said above! Take the time to understand image "resolution". I couldn't "show my work" to you, but I finally understand that it's the image resolution (PPI) and how you process the file for printing that's the important part, it has nothing to do with the size of the file.