Difference in Mbs on similar subjects (Page 3): It would be interesting to see the histograms for both original images. I think that would provide some answers. Light = Data. The more...

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

It would be interesting to see the histograms for both original images. I think that would provide some answers. Light = Data. The more light captured in an image, the more data in the file. Hence the expression Expose-to-the-Right. Over 50% of the potential light value is in the right-most quadrant of the histogram. For a complete detailed description, see Jared Lloyd's white paper on the topic. Actually, he has an eBook on this topic. He explains it at the doctorate level, it's a deep rabbit hole.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

jcboy3 wrote:

First, I think you mean MB (megabyte) and not Mb (megabit). And don’t pus an “s” after it or it will be confused with megabytes/second.

Second, the size difference is due to compression (yes, even raw files can be compressed). Similar colors compress more readily.

Finally, you can’t get much slower shutter speed without serious motion blur. The only option for improvement is to use a larger aperture (smaller f/ number). F/2.8-f/4 is preferred.

Thankyou for the info on MB and Mb.
Re the lens my 70-200 2.8 is available but is heavy as my left arm is not good, though once outdoors I have a monopod ready. Thanks again.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Pop k

MtManMD wrote:

It would be interesting to see the histograms for ... (show quote)

That’s not it at all. The amount of data in an uncompressed raw file isn’t based on light or dark. The difference in file sizes is based on the compression algorithm. The potential light value has nothing to do with file size.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

clansman wrote:

Please may I have any info: the gray/white horse is 10Mbs, but the chestnut is 14Mbs. Is this because of the colour difference. Both were shot at 1/800, 5.6. 8000ISO. Body R5, lens canon 70-300. Raw using Canon DPP processing.
Secondly, I will repeat the visit tomorrow, but use 5-6000 ISO, and rely on brightening to see if this improves the clarity.......any advice, please ?

Might be the lovely rider's ponytail in the second shot

Sorry. But the two shots are sure beauties 🎈🎈🎈🎈

clansman Loc: wendover,england

joecichjr wrote:

Might be the lovely rider's ponytail in the second shot

Sorry. But the two shots are sure beauties 🎈🎈🎈🎈

Thankyou: I will go again today and see if I can maintain and maybe improve, though still indoors!

Bubbee Loc: Aventura, Florida

I think it's a given...More colors and depth and complexity increase the size accordingly.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

Bubbee wrote:

I think it's a given...More colors and depth and complexity increase the size accordingly.

Many thanks and once I am back outdoors at horse trials there will be much more in the frame, so I'm sure there will be more in the frame as you say. It's just that moving up to 45MB in the R5 is quite an experience. Only had it for a month and it has rained mostly since!

Bubbee Loc: Aventura, Florida

clansman wrote:

Many thanks and once I am back outdoors at horse trials there will be much more in the frame, so I'm sure there will be more in the frame as you say. It's just that moving up to 45MB in the R5 is quite an experience. Only had it for a month and it has rained mostly since!

That sounds very high to me....but I'm not familiar with Canon or the R5. Would love to see them!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Linda From Maine wrote:

Strobe at a horse show? Eeek!

Linda, years ago I went to an equestrian event with my parents in Bloomfield Hills, Mi. My Mom loved horses. This was the beginning of the use of strobes and they were allowed. Because they flash so quickly they do not bother the horses. Flash bulbs, however, are/were a different story.

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

File size is not the only difference. The chestnut colored horse is noticeably less sharp overall. Perhaps it is a focus issue but I suspect that it's more likely a minuscule camera movement during the exposure.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

photogeneralist wrote:

File size is not the only difference. The chestnut colored horse is noticeably less sharp overall. Perhaps it is a focus issue but I suspect that it's more likely a minuscule camera movement during the exposure.

Thankyou, and perhaps as I am trying to shoot using the screen rather than the viewfinder there is movement. I do not like using 1/800sec but it allows lower ISO than my usual 1/1000 or more outdoors. 5.6 is the max on the lens but I will try the 70-200 tomorrow as it is 2.8, but much heavier. We shall see.

clansman Loc: wendover,england

SteveR wrote:

Linda, years ago I went to an equestrian event with my parents in Bloomfield Hills, Mi. My Mom loved horses. This was the beginning of the use of strobes and they were allowed. Because they flash so quickly they do not bother the horses. Flash bulbs, however, are/were a different story.

Agree on flash, but I have never heard of a strobe used in the UK. I doubt if it has been used and will ask around, though I think I know the answer.