RAW file converted to lower MB JPEG?

[Nakz]

I have raw files ranging from 20-24MB, and when I'm done post processing them to JPEGS in Lightroom 5, I make sure quality is set to 100, but the JPEG still ends up being around 10-15MB... Have any idea to resolve this problem? Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

what problem?

jpegs were invented to compress/remove information so your pretty pictures didn't take up as much storage space.

 

[Msteelio91]

Yeah this is not a problem it's just the way formatting works. Perhaps we're reading your message wrong...

Are you trying to make your JPEG's smaller or keep them larger?

 

[CameraClicker]

Like the others, I'm not seeing the problem. Raw files are 12, 14 or 16 bit sensor data, depending on the camera. JPEGs are actual images of something. If you want a really big file, just to take up drive space, save the files as 16 bit TIFF files, or Edit them in Photoshop using lots of layers, then save them as PSD files. That should make your raw files look tiny!

Seriously, though. A raw file contains data for a single photosite, a computer program takes the values at a bunch of photosites and based on the location and values, comes up with a RGB number set for a single pixel. It repeats the process until it has the whole image done. Some sensors, like the Foveon, have 3 photosites that are stacked. Similar concept, different program. Most use a Bayer filter. You can Google them to get more information. At the RGB file phase, a 16 bit TIFF has 3 groups of 16 bit numbers to represent a colour. A JPEG only has 3 groups of 8 bit numbers to represent a colour. A JPEG cannot represent as many colours, it does not have the space.

If you really want your head to spin, start reading about colour spaces.

 

[KmH]

If you want the JPEG files size to be smaller than 10-15 MB, like for online display, you need to use less than 100 in LR.
The Quality slider controls how much an image file is compressed.

TPF has a 2.2 MB image file size limit, regardless the file type.

Working with JPEG compression and using the Quality slider from the Course Lightroom 5 Essentials: 06 Creating Slideshows and Web Galleries

 

[Nakz]

I was trying to state that if I were to post process in RAW then export it to share on social media sites what file would you recommend to use for best quality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I was trying to state that if I were to post process in RAW then export it to share on social media sites what file would you recommend to use for best quality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2,048 pixels on the longer axis; sharpening set for "Screen" at Standard degree of sharpening. You can set a file storage size limit in Lightroom's Export dialog. A maximum file storage size limit that you set by hand at 1,999 Kb is plenty big for social media as the upper limit, so your pics will squeeze in at under two megabytes when LR does the export.

On Facebook, make sure to select the High Quality option when uploading.

 

[Big Mike]

I was trying to state that if I were to post process in RAW then export it to share on social media sites what file would you recommend to use for best quality?

A Raw file isn't even a picture yet. It's just the information that is used to create a picture. So when you process a raw file, you are rendering that information into an actual image file. When you export it, you choose which type of image file you want to create.

JPEG is the most common type of digital image file, and this is what you should use.

The process of creating or saving a jpeg file, was designed to make the file size smaller. So when you save an image as jpeg, the software throws out what it doesn't need and then compresses the information. The result is a lower quality file, but a much smaller file size. The lower quality usually isn't visible to use, unless you set the compression really high (quality low).

However, the thing to avoid is saving a jpeg, then heavily editing your photo and/or saving it over and over again. If you are going to further edit your photo, save it in a better format like TIFF or PSD, then only save to JPEG as your last step.

Also, when you upload to social media (or anywhere really), you probably want to get the file size down, to make it easier to upload and download. Saving as a jpeg is key, but there is also the size (in pixels) and the jpeg compression. You can reduce the size and set the compression higher (quality lower) to really make the image file much smaller.

 

[Braineack]

I was trying to state that if I were to post process in RAW then export it to share on social media sites what file would you recommend to use for best quality?

You need to resize down. You can still use 100% JPG Quality, but the image size itself you want in the 2000-2500px range. That will end up with reasonable 2-4MB file that will look great on most screens.

 

[Derrel]

I was trying to state that if I were to post process in RAW then export it to share on social media sites what file would you recommend to use for best quality?

You need to resize down. You can still use 100% JPG Quality, but the file size itself you want in the 2000-2500px range. That will end up with reasonable 2-4MB file that will look great on most screens.

But at 2,500- or even 3,600-pixels wide, one cannot SEE ON-SCREEN any quality difference between a JPEG made at 100% Quality and one saved at 87% quality...or between "12" and "a high 9" quality using Photoshop's scale...the only difference is bloated file size. And that is the secret to the success and truly ubiquitous nature of the .JPG file format; it can show an image with a very minimal loss of on-screen visual quality, even with pretty high levels of compression which allow the storage requirements to be as low as say, 485 k on a rather large-sized image area!

One can make a 1,600 pixel-tall image that is 1.5 megabytes in storage space, or 600k in storage size, and yet on-screen, the difference is virtually imperceptible. That's the diff between say an "11-quality" Save-As operation's result, and that of a "9-quality" Save-As operation.

SUBJECT matter can play a huge role as well; on portraits of people, with simple backgrounds, there is not a lot of fine,intricate detail, so storage requirements can be made very low; on a medium-distance landscape with say, a hardwood forest, there is a boatload of fine details within such a scene, and the file space needed can easily be eight-fold greater than on say, a headshot done in front of a white, seamless paper backdrop.

 

[KmH]

but the file size itself you want in the 2000-2500px range.

2000-2500 px is resolution, not file size.

 

[Braineack]

*image size.