Thoroughly confused about file size? (Page 3): Fredrick! Beautiful image! These two image versions were saved with different compression ratios. E.g.: when saving a jpeg in Photoshop...

elee950021 Loc: New York, NY

Fredrick wrote:

I just noticed in the exif data that the first image which is 3.27 MB says Compression is (blank), whereas the second image exif data for the 27.5 MB file says Compression: JPEG.

I don’t understand why that would be (perhaps different settings in Luminar NEO vs. Luminar AI?), and what the implications might be?

Fredrick!

Beautiful image! These two image versions were saved with different compression ratios. E.g.: when saving a jpeg in Photoshop Elements, you can choose from 1 to 12 in terms of "Quality: low to maximum, 1 to 12" with different file sizes, all other things being equal.

I would think twice about reducing all your "large" files to similar small sizes as your printed 16x20. Someday, you may wish to crop an image and you'll just get less quality; you could add A.I. image sizing software to your repertoire. Who knows what "magic" the printer used to provide great results from your small file?

Be well! Ed

BigOldArt Loc: Seminole, FL

One possibility is that the files were saved a different levels of JPEG compression. For example, in Photoshop degree of compression is a setting when saving a file.

dhspeck

Yes, indeed!

billt1970 Loc: Gambrills, Maryland

Fredrick wrote:

Hi Bill. It was taken with the Fuji X100V camera. I shoot in RAW and jpeg. I edited the RAW file for both images.

That's good that you started with the RAW image. Any editing of the RAW is non-destructive. Any further editing of the JPEG generally reduces the quality from the original JPEG.

Were the two radically different JPEGs directly from the RAW, or was one descended from a JPEG?

BTW, I always shoot in RAW+JPEG and work from there depending on what my client wants, RAW or JPEG.

BT

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

billt1970 wrote:

That's good that you started with the RAW image. Any editing of the RAW is non-destructive. Any further editing of the JPEG generally reduces the quality from the original JPEG.

Were the two radically different JPEGs directly from the RAW, or was one descended from a JPEG?

BTW, I always shoot in RAW+JPEG and work from there depending on what my client wants, RAW or JPEG.

BT

I created the resulting 27.5MB JPEG image from the RAW file. Then I tweaked that new JPEG a couple of times with (possibly) three different editing programs, creating different versions of that JPEG until I got to my final JPEG version. That final JPEG version happened to be the 3.47MB one.

BTW, I understand that re-editing a JPEG file reduces the quality of the original JPEG image, but I’ve never really been able to see it in my images, so I don’t worry about it.

I’m now going to look at the default JPEG compression settings in the three editing programs I typically use. I think one of them might be the culprit. Thanks.

Still learning69 Loc: N. Alabama

The only thing i`m aware of which could change the file size is saving in a tiff or png file once you`ve finished editing. I work exclusively with luminar Neo and save my images in jpeg as well as tiff and png files . Raw files are inherently larger because of the amount of information which they contain. When you edit in Luminar Neo it will save your edits in the order which they were done. Don`t know if this helps .

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Still learning69 wrote:

The only thing i`m aware of which could change the file size is saving in a tiff or png file once you`ve finished editing. I work exclusively with luminar Neo and save my images in jpeg as well as tiff and png files . Raw files are inherently larger because of the amount of information which they contain. When you edit in Luminar Neo it will save your edits in the order which they were done. Don`t know if this helps .

Thanks. I only save in JPEG. With this image I used Luminar NEO, Luminar AI, and (possibly) Photoshop Elements 2020?
I’m going to check all three JPEG default compression settings.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Fredrick wrote:

I created the resulting 27.5MB JPEG image from the... (show quote)

For maximum image quality, why aren't you passing the files between the software as 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhotoRGB (or a native file format that retains the maximum of the original RAW data, such as DNG or PSD for Adobe-supported files)?

While proper to review the JPEG settings at the transitions, if only JPEG is supported, the better approach is to seek to retain the maximum bit-depth of the color data until the final JPEG output is created.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Fredrick wrote:

I'm hoping someone out there can answer my questio... (show quote)

Can't help with an answer without more data. The (great) shot does bring to mind Neal Diamond, however "Forever in Bluejeans."

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Fredrick wrote:

....BTW, I understand that re-editing a JPEG file reduces the quality of the original JPEG image, but I’ve never really been able to see it in my images, ...

I suspect that a monitor doesn't have sufficient color/brightness depth to reproduce the differences. They may just be smaller increments than it can display.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Well, I looked at settings in all three editing programs that I used for this image (Luminar NEO, Luminar AI, and PSE 2020) and couldn't find where there was a setting for JPEG compression.

So I took the JPEG image that was sized as 3.27 MB and just did a "save as" in all three editing programs. I made NO changes to the 3.27 MB JPEG image. The resulting new JPEG image from Luminar AI was still 3.27 MB. However, the resulting new JPEG image from PSE 2020 was 9.08 MB, and the resulting new JPEG image from Luminar NEO was 15.2 MB!

So, I have no idea what the software in these programs does in manipulating these images and sizes ... and am not going to worry about it any more. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Fredrick wrote:

Well, I looked at settings in all three editing pr... (show quote)

Maybe if you were not using so many PP programs it would not be so confusing

Me, I like to keep it very SIMPLE.......JPEG in Elements 9 and I'm DONE.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Fredrick wrote:

Well, I looked at settings in all three editing pr... (show quote)

Well, I always want to keep strict track of my data.

Therefore I've set up Capture One as my central "Photo Lab" (I only shoot RAW) and use all other programs as plugins.

I use TIFF@16bit w/Adobe ProPhoto as roundtrip format.

Jpegs are only meant to be final redistributable files, not to be processed. Unacceptable data loss in each codec op. As I previously posted Jpegs do not store "pixels" but the 2DDFFT coefficients... Each codec op changes everything according to software developer criteria. That is the root cause of the weird effect you are experiencing.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

jlg1000 wrote:

Well, I always want to keep strict track of my dat... (show quote)

Thanks. I'm teaching myself Capture One (Fujifilm version), and will eventually standardize on that.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

imagemeister wrote:

Maybe if you were not using so many PP programs it would not be so confusing

Me, I like to keep it very SIMPLE.......JPEG in Elements 9 and I'm DONE.

You are so correct. Too many editing programs over time. But I have learned a lot from each one. I'm currently teaching myself Capture One, and will standardize on that one in the near future.