Thanks. I crop RAW files in lightroom & export them to a folder as jpegs. (The jpgs in the folder are, of course, always as I cropped them.)

I don't have the website set up yet. I'm still trying to decide on which gallery plugin to buy, most interested in Envira. I do want to install a gallery that will allow me to display the jpgs as I had cropped them in Lightroom. (It appears that some galleries display only square images, while others only thumbnails that correspond to 4 x 6...)

I'm going to try and set up a Wordpress site. I haven't been able to tell if Envira Gallery will allow me to import cropped images just as I've done them in Lilghtroom. It seems as if you have to set the crop for all the images, rather than the Envira plugin allowing single images to retain their custom edges.

Does anyone have experience with Envira and can help?

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.

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

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!

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.

Thanks

100%

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...

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.

Thanks, BTW. That was obvious to me from the outset. I simply began calling MB and GB and TB "weight" years ago, just by understanding that electrical connections have mass. (E=MC squared. Energy is matter or vice versa.)

Sorry if my lack of technical knowledge disappoints. I wish I had more time to learn some of what is clearly second nature to you.

As I think I wrote a couple of times in this thread, I'm using a Nikon D850. Unfortunately, I felt a couple of days ago that I just don't have the knowledge to communicate to you the problem, but I came back chiefly to thank you.

Yes, the 45.7 megapixel camera often produces larger than 45 MB RAW files. And why a 60 MB RAW file gets transformed into a 30 MB file through Lightroom's Develop function and/or Export as a jpg, beats me. I can almost swear that was not the case, before my Lightroom 6 somehow began behaving badly.

Almost all of what I export is just for use on my BenQ and Laptop (& I post some online). That will change eventually, but for now, I have time & money only for these 72 DPI images, sized at 1000 x 677 and taking up about 650 KB. I could resize 72 DPI at 1920 x 1280, but those take up 1.2 MB of space or so, and at least to my eye, seem no sharper and more detailed on the screen. These 1000 X 667 images really do look GREAT on the BenQ; usually I'm shooting large, not small, D850 RAW files that come in around 60 MB, sometimes 72, but eventually, I will want to print.

That's why I develop the series of those I stack at 300 DPI, the resize box left unchecked, so that after I might make straight the horizon, cropping ever so little, the dimensions remain at about 8000 X 5500. You would think one of these images of the series I stack in Affinity Photo would be about the same 60 MB after being developed and exported. Not quite as much as a RAW file with all its information, but not like half as much.

Yeah, I don't where I got the notion of weight, but I do understand that a byte is a datum. I did forget to let you guys know I have had jpg quality set to 100 all along. The only reason I export jpgs at full size (the resize box unchecked) is because I anticipate printing some of these relative few "Final" merged images.

When I print some of the other images, I'll simply export without resizing the image, then, or do whatever the printing service requires, but not if my Lightroom 6 is not exporting images at the best resolution I can get. I certainly think that since a byte is a datum, the number of an image's bytes have to do with its resolution. That's always been obvious to me and I would hope I'm not mistaken. Maybe there's an element of absurdity above a certain range, as if a million gigabyte image would be no sharper or detailed.

Hello. I have an issue I hope you find interesting. I create 4-image series I synchronize while developing in Lightroom 6, then I export all 4 at 300 DPI into a photo folder, before uploading them into Affinity Photo & selecting Focus Merge. Then I export the single-image 300 DPI product into a photo folder. Recently, I checked on the weight of an image in a series of 4. The original RAW file was shot from the Small size option of my D850, so the RAW weight is only 22.2 MB. But one of the series weighed only 6.66 MB. To check on Lightroom's functioning, I exported a jpg I had developed from a RAW image weighing 53.4 MB; it weighed 26.2, so I began to wonder if something's wrong.

For a few days, on occasion I exported at 300 DPI, the "resize" box unchecked, and the linear dimensions were right--a Small image about 4000 on one side, about 2600 on the other, a Large image about 8000 on one side, 5500 on the other--a few images to see if Lightroom corrected itself. It's still doing the same, but I wondered if it always has, so I did the Focus Merge process on a series of images for which I set the development parameters a couple of months ago. I have about 40 "Final" stacked images in total, but all of the series at 300 DPI that produced them, I've deleted; I've kept only the RAW files, so the idea was to reproduce what I had done & check on weights. Result--each of the series weighs between 28.6 and 31.2 MB, but the Final image, after all 4 images were merged in Affinity Photo, is 51.7 MB.

So how did Affinity Photo increase what I assume is pixel density (though I might be wrong in my assumption that more weight is more pixel density, it did make sense that maybe a merging of 4 photo does increase something like that)? I went back and checked on the weights of my earliest Final merged images from last winter, and I found weights pretty much between 220 MB and 230 MB, as if to confirm my notion that merging the images increases weight so that the Final image is a kind of conglomerate of pixels from those images merged, whether or not this has anything to do with resolution or detail, notions I'm not clear about.

Then I looked at more recent Finals: 50.3 MB, 55.6 MB, etc. All of them around that much. So I wonder if, since last winter, my Lightroom has somehow crapped out. Normally, I export with the resize box checked and one edge selected at 1000, the other at 667, 72 DPI. The images are good enough to display digitally. If I were to get prints done, as I hope to, I would export without resizing, but wouldn't I want the images' weights to be pretty close to what the RAW file's weight is, or should I really lose so much as I've noted when exporting as jpg? But then, why the change from like 230 MB to 53.1 MB after merging images? Some of those early series were 8 images, but even so, half of 230 is 115, not 50.