post conversion file size: I'm sure I'll regret asking for help on this, if only because I expect the explanation is over my head, but here goes. I just finished taking a dozen or so...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

post conversion file size

Page 1 of 3 next> last>>

Mar 18, 2015 19:13:34 #

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I'm sure I'll regret asking for help on this, if only because I expect the explanation is over my head, but here goes. I just finished taking a dozen or so pictures for a client sample, using both my Nikon D700 and D7100.

Raw file sizes:
D700- between 25.1 mb and 25.5 mb
D7100- between 31 mb and 32 mb

D7100 files converted to DNG (to enable LR3 recognition) resulted in DNG files between 27 mb and 28.5 mb. No real surprise.

All files processed in LR (exposure, WB, sharpening, occasional grad.filter).

Jpeg conversions @ 10% (for email, my standard procedure)-
D700 files- between 422 kb and 597 kb
D7100 files- one 677 kb, one 683 kb, the rest between 1900 kb and 3500 kb

TIFF conversions-
D700- between 59 mb and 70 mb
D7100- between 120 mb and 140 mb

My question: why the seemingly negligible difference in file sizes prior to processing and conversion and the larger differences post conversion?

Mar 18, 2015 19:26:03 #

DonWauchope Loc: Brevard, NC

Just a quick comment: LR will recognize your RAW files, I don't know why you want to convert to .dng.

Mar 18, 2015 19:54:44 #

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

DonWauchope wrote:

Just a quick comment: LR will recognize your RAW files, I don't know why you want to convert to .dng.

I have LR3, which does not recognize raw from D7100.

Mar 18, 2015 19:58:21 #

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Nikon says the size of a Lossless compress NEF file from the D700 would be about 16.3MB, and the size of an uncompressed NEF file would be about 24.7MB.

Clearly you are using Uncompressed NEF files, and should change that to Lossless Compression, which will reduce the file size dramatically with no other effect. (With the D7100 you have no choice, as it will not write an uncompressed NEF file.)

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

My question: why the seemingly negligible difference in file sizes prior to processing and conversion and the larger differences post conversion?

Change the D700 to use lossless compression.

Mar 18, 2015 20:12:47 #

DonWauchope Loc: Brevard, NC

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I have LR3, which does not recognize raw from D7100.

Oh I see. I didn't know about this limitation on earlier LR's, excuse me.

Mar 18, 2015 21:48:35 #

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

DonWauchope wrote:

Oh I see. I didn't know about this limitation on earlier LR's, excuse me.

It is the Adobe Camera Raw version that causes it. The camera raw version for the camera is a version that is not compatible with LR 3.

Mar 19, 2015 05:32:29 #

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I'm sure I'll regret asking for help on this, if o... (show quote)

I wouldn't worry about it and just enjoy taking pictures.

Mar 19, 2015 07:25:09 #

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Gene51 wrote:

I wouldn't worry about it and just enjoy taking pictures.

I know it's irrelevant. Just curiosity I guess.

Mar 19, 2015 07:29:04 #

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

jethro779 wrote:

It is the Adobe Camera Raw version that causes it. The camera raw version for the camera is a version that is not compatible with LR 3.

Yeah, unfortunately, as a holdout using WinXP, I cannot upgrade Lightroom.

Mar 19, 2015 08:44:16 #

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

My question: why the seemingly negligible difference in file sizes prior to processing and conversion and the larger differences post conversion?

Physics - the Laws of the Universe.

You're right to regret asking. The detailed explanation would be painful. :D

Mar 19, 2015 08:45:31 #

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Yeah, unfortunately, as a holdout using WinXP, I cannot upgrade Lightroom.

You can get Windows 10 for free. Anyone with a machine running any form of Windows, even an unauthorized version, will be able to get Win10 for free.

Mar 19, 2015 08:49:59 #

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

The short answer is that JPEG is a lossy compression while TIFF is typically lossless. A lossless TIFF made from a RAW file will typically be quite a bit larger than the RAW file, while any JPEG from the same RAW file will be smaller.

Mar 19, 2015 09:43:20 #

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

... snip ...

Jpeg conversions @ 10% (for email, my standard procedure)-
D700 files- between 422 kb and 597 kb
D7100 files- one 677 kb, one 683 kb, the rest between 1900 kb and 3500 kb

TIFF conversions-
D700- between 59 mb and 70 mb
D7100- between 120 mb and 140 mb

My question: why the seemingly negligible difference in file sizes prior to processing and conversion and the larger differences post conversion?

I have seen a number of questions about huge TIFF files, so no surprise there either.
With your .jpg however, the very small size is caused by your choice of "for e-mail". If you were to save as .jpg, without selecting for e-mail, that file would be lot larger as well.
I have saved many files as .jpg (coming from raw) that ended up between 5 and 12 mb, but only when selecting to save as .jpg for e-mail is the size counted in kb.

These small sizes are fine for mailing and viewing on the computer, but if the recipient wants to print them as well, the results probably won't be very good.

Mar 19, 2015 09:53:47 #

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

jerryc41 wrote:

You can get Windows 10 for free. Anyone with a machine running any form of Windows, even an unauthorized version, will be able to get Win10 for free.

I think I'm going to wait a while longer before jumping to 10. If and when I do upgrade it will likely be to 7.

Mar 19, 2015 10:03:51 #

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Morning Star wrote:

I have seen a number of questions about huge TIFF ... (show quote)

I understand fully why the jpegs are small; I made them small intentionally. And I know file sizes increase when they are converted to TIFF.

What I was asking is why the minor difference in size of the raw files from each of the cameras became significant difference in sizes when converted?

I now wonder if the explanation lies in the fact that the D700, while only 12mp, is set to shoot uncompressed raw images, while the D7100, at 24mp, is set at lossless compressed. Consequently, when conversion to another format takes place, the D700 images undergo more compression than those from the D7100.

Page 1 of 3 next> last>>

If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.

Main Photography Discussion

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum