Lightroom 6 Image Weight After Export (Page 4): Yes, mass of the storage element, rather than energy. Oh, well. Everyone needs to be right and I'm just wondering why Lightroom seems to...

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

JD750 wrote:

The full one but the difference is not measurable.

My point was the mass of the storage element should be considered because without that there is no data.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Yes, mass of the storage element, rather than energy. Oh, well. Everyone needs to be right and I'm just wondering why Lightroom seems to export at nearly half the byte it used to.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Brucer wrote:

... I'm just wondering why Lightroom seems to export at nearly half the byte it used to.

Did you maybe select a different quality level for the JPEG export?

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

Longshadow wrote:

No, the media that it is stored on has mass.
A byte itself has none.

A thought has no mass, but when written on paper, does that give it mass?
The mass of the combined ink and paper?
What is the mass of a byte written on paper?

You can store one byte or a bazillion, the mass of the media will not change.

A thought has no mass? It might seem to.

Anyway, why does my laptop allow for only as "much" as 1TB when the mass of the media will not change, I wonder. Got me curious, but when I really get down to it, looks like I'll buy the Lightroom/Photoshop subscription, once I'm even more convinced my Lightroom 6 has a bug that won't go away. There's more information stored in an 8000 X 5500 file of 60 MB, than in an 8000 X 5500 file of 30 MB, but what is "more" information...

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

Longshadow wrote:

Did you maybe select a different quality level for the JPEG export?

100%

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Brucer wrote:

A thought has no mass? It might seem to. br br A... (show quote)

A larger quantity if bits/bytes/words.

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

JD750 wrote:

That ridiculous. We are talking about the bytes in... (show quote)

Thanks

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

Longshadow wrote:

45.7 Mp camera, the total amount of pixels in the sensor.
The file will not be 45.7 Mb.
Apples and kumquats. Pixels<>bits(bytes).

The file size for a 45Mp image will usually be larger because there is much overhead information in the file in addition to just the image data.

JPEGs created are smaller in bytes because the data is compressed, depending on the amount of compression selected during the save ("quality" level).

Yes, I thought that was my experience. My RAW files usually check in around 52 MB--they vary of course--and upon export at 100% jpg quality, the jpg file of the work done in Lightroom Develop is not many MB's fewer. That's not my experience anymore.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Brucer wrote:

Yes, I thought that was my experience. My RAW files usually check in around 52 MB--they vary of course--and upon export at 100% jpg quality, the jpg file of the work done in Lightroom Develop is not many MB's fewer. That's not my experience anymore.

If you believe something has changed over time, can't you go into your files and find examples? Say a file from the D850 from a year ago that is this "larger" sized JPEG vs one you export today?

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you believe something has changed over time, can't you go into your files and find examples? Say a file from the D850 from a year ago that is this "larger" sized JPEG vs one you export today?

Thanks for the suggestion, but of course I thought of it. I don't keep 300 DPI images hanging around besides the ones I wrote about, about 220 MB made of as many as 8 focus stacked images, Focus Merged in Affinity Photo. The first six or seven of about 40 stacked images. Then they began coming in at about 60 MB, and even though most of these are stacks of 4, the division is about 1/2 of what was, which suggests to me that Lightroom's been sizing images down somehow for awhile. It is, as I keep saying, Lightroom 6, though. That's not the subscription version.

I dug up my Lightroom book and I feel confident I'll figure out enough to make me comfortable before I buy the subscription.

Thanks again!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Brucer wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, but of course I thought... (show quote)

Oh well, without an example, the discussion / investigation is moot. We can't see the file type, we can't see the PS / TIFF layers, we can't see the pixel resolution, all things that are relevant to unraveling what is happening.

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

CHG_CANON wrote:

Oh well, without an example, the discussion / investigation is moot. We can't see the file type, we can't see the PS / TIFF layers, we can't see the pixel resolution, all things that are relevant to unraveling what is happening.

Could have told you all that. And think I did multiple times.

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

CHG_CANON wrote:

Oh well, without an example, the discussion / investigation is moot. We can't see the file type, we can't see the PS / TIFF layers, we can't see the pixel resolution, all things that are relevant to unraveling what is happening.

You would need to physically see the file type. You would need physically to see the PS / TIFF layers. And you would physically need to see the pixel resolution.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Brucer wrote:

You would need to physically see the file type. You would need physically to see the PS / TIFF layers. And you would physically need to see the pixel resolution.

Read this final response and compare back to the original post. Note there are no dots that are needed to understand the issue. Note there are no bytes needed to understand the situation ...