New Participant

Answered

Lightroom export file size: why so small? How can I maximize image quality?

Forum|Forum|11 years ago
December 19, 2014
21 replies
157009 views

My image file sizes are much smaller after editing and exporting through Lightroom. Is it impossible to maintain original file size to preserve image quality? Will this smaller file size have negative impact on prints? Any help is appreciated!

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer dj_paige

File size is not an indicator of image quality! You are looking at the wrong measure.

File size is determined by the number of pixels you have, the quality slider in the Export dialog box, and about a dozen other things, most of which you can't control.

You want to look at the number of pixels (height and width) and not the file size.

Is it impossible to maintain original file size to preserve image quality?

Not only is it impossible, it is also meaningless (see above)

Will this smaller file size have negative impact on prints?

Instead of looking at the file size, you need to look at the number of pixels in the exported photo (width and height), and this will determine if you will get a decent print. The usual standard is that you need 300 pixels per inch.

Show previous replies

I

izildec71293715

New Participant

PLEASE HELP.. why when I export my photos in Lightroom with a 300pixel per inch and opens the image in Photoshop it shows very distort???? please help. what am I doing wrong.

D

dj_paige

Brainiac

izildec71293715 wrote:
PLEASE HELP.. why when I export my photos in Lightroom with a 300pixel per inch and opens the image in Photoshop it shows very distort???? please help. what am I doing wrong.

Have you tried the suggestions in this thread?

J

johnnymac

New Participant

Only recently have I noticed a change. So I imported a 14meg raw file and did no editing whatsoever I then exported it to a jpeg no resizing, 100% quality and 300dpi the file size came out at 4 meg. Definitely something has changed

Todd Shaner

Brainiac

Nothing has changed except perhaps the image file you are now exporting.

Below is a LR5.7.1 Export and LR CC Export using the same JPEG 100 Quality, sRGB, No Resize settings with a Canon 600D CR2 raw file. Showing are the original Camera Raw, in-camera JPEG, and LR JPEG Export files:

The 10 byte size discrepancy is due to metadata differences only.

R

Rainer 1948

New Participant

Hi, new to this.

I would like a simple answer if there is one. Your image in CR2 file is 3 x bigger than the original JPG file. I assume that that is the file size out of the camera if saving the photo in both SD slots. The question I have is why the difference in file size when exporting from LR as a JPG, ( 1/2 of the original CR2 file size.

I have in the past saved my shots in the camera as RAW and JPG. Same pixel size but vastly different file sizes.

I take it that as long as the pixel count is the same, there is no difference in image quality. And that the benefit of shooting in RAW is that one can make more adjustments than if it had been shot in JPG. Correct?

"Below is a LR5.7.1 Export and LR CC Export using the same JPEG 100 Quality, sRGB, No Resize settings with a Canon 600D CR2 raw file. Showing are the original Camera Raw, in-camera JPEG, and LR JPEG Export files:

The 10 byte size discrepancy is due to metadata differences only."

DesertArgonaut

New Participant

‌I compared my 16.7mb jpeg from raw in Corel Aftershot Pro and the 6mb JPEG from dng in Lightroom.

My wife who has twenty years in graphic design also assisted in the comparison.

Just as in the old Pepsi and coke commercials we didn't know which one was LR or Corel while viewing in Lightroom 6 comparison window.

I Shut off all presets that I had control over.

WE didn't see any difference in either file. Even at 400%. We did like the color quality on the LR photo better.

I no longer have any concerns over the size and image quality now.

TThe pic was of a mother owl with 3 owlets nesting in a Saguaro at 300mm at 250ISO.

Todd Shaner

Brainiac

The JPEG Export 100% Quality setting only needs to be used if you plan on doing extensive editing to the exported file and then re-saving the file. This provides the best insurance against compression artifact buildup. For all other "read only" usage it is a waste of disk space and download speed for posted or emailed images.

This article provides some good examples of what you can expect when using less than 100% JPEG Quality:

Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings

Per Berntsen

Community Expert

My view on this is somewhat different ...

Jpgs should never be edited, except as a last resort. And it defeats the purpose of working with raw files if you export a jpg, and then edit it. If someone gives me a jpg to edit, I always save it as a tiff and convert to 16-bit, to minimize furhter deterioration. I realize that this will not be true 16-bit - no information is added to the image - but my impression is that it will withstand heavy editing better, and not end up with a comb-like histogram.

For printing, a 100% quality jpg will usually be fine, although I prefer to use tiff myself - being more nitpicky than most ...

For screen use, 100% quality is overkill, 60 is usually fine, some images might need 80, and for others 40 will be enough.

DesertArgonaut

New Participant

I too have experienced this. My raw files are 5184x3456 20.5mb at 24bit from a canon 60d.

In corel Aftershot Pro I saved as a jpeg at 100% 300dpi no cropping or enlarging. The jpeg file came out as 16.7mb at the same 5184x3456.

In Lightroom 6 or 5 for that matter the DNG came out as 17.6mb. After exporting to jpeg all things being the same the jpegs came out as 6.12mb.

What gives?

Why the big discrepancy?

Are you saying both of these jpegs would both have the same print quality?

Thanks in advance.

ssprengel

Inspiring

What quality, sharpening and pixel-dimensions settings did you use in LR Export? All three will affect the MB and you haven’t said what pixel dimensions you might be resizing to in LR.

woodsroamer

New Participant

I had a similar issue - my original file was 5760 × 3840 raw, and after I converted to jpeg with Lightroom 5, it became 2560 × 1707 all of a sudden, even though I selected 100% quality when I exported. Then I found out what I accidentally did to cause this. What I did, was that I accidentally moved the raw file to another folder, so Lightroom didn't recognized the raw file, and made the jpeg from the preview image. After I figured this out and moved the raw file back to where it was, I successfully made a 5760 × 3840 jpeg.

Hope this helps.

shareea84456749

New Participant

This was my problem solved!! Thanks for sharing!!!

gomagoti

New Participant

Hi all

I too have been experiencing this problem. For the past 2 weeks, having not changed any settings, my jpgs are exporting as tiny files with a significant loss in image quality. my settings were:

resize to fit 500px short edge

no limit on file size

quality slider at 100%

resolution 1200pixels/cm

This would give me a good balance between image quality and a decent sized JPG. File sizes ranged from 3-8MB. As of 2 weeks ago, the file size has dropped to below 27kb,using the same settings, and the resolution & image quality are terrible. Unticking the resize to fit box solves the resolution and image quality issue, makes the file bigger again so I can happily zoom in and out, but doesn't solve the initial mystery of why everything suddenly went haywire in the first place?

Per Berntsen

Community Expert

resize to fit 500px short edge

This is a small image, and if you're viewing it at more than 100% magnification, it will look bad. At 200%, half of the pixels you see will have to be invented by the computer by interpolation. To evaluate image quality, always view at 100%.

When you export an image, consider what you want to use it for, and size it accordingly.

resolution 1200pixels/cm

Whatever number you enter in the resolution field has no impact on quality, until you print the image.

Ppi (or ppcm) is metadata used to calculate print size, and also affects print quality. Pixel dimensions divided by ppi equals print dimensions in inches.

If you want to export for print, enter print dimensions in inches or cm, and the correct ppi for your printer in the export dialog.

File sizes ranged from 3-8MB

File size won't tell you the quality of a jpg - pixel dimensions and the quality setting in the export dialog will. Compression will vary, depending on subject matter. Flat areas, like an even blue sky, will compress well, whereas detailed areas, like a forest floor, will not compress well.

J

josephwiecha

New Participant

One thing you want to check is be sure the link is not broken. Right click the mouse and choose "reveal in finder". If the link is not correct - you will be exporting the preview - hence small size. Repair the link and the export size (pixel dimensions) should match what you see in the metadata window in Lightroom.

GITOA

Participating Frequently

I am glad to have seen this. I have been using Lightroom since its initial inception and only recently experiencing this same problem. My megapixels (width and height) are now significantly smaller than prior exports on the same images (megapixels width and height). This is quite disconcerting. Of course I have checked to make sure the image quality is 100%....etc. etc.....and all the usual things. Although it disrupts my workflow and creates many more additional steps, the only solution I have found is... instead of simply exporting files as jpegs......I am now exporting as DNG's and then opening with Photoshop, then saving as a Jpeg. The file size remains consistent for what it should be this way. I certainly hope that Lightroom fixes this problem.

JP Hess

Inspiring

Let's clarify something. Width and height are not reported in Lightroom in megapixels, but rather pixels. Are you saying that the pixel dimensions of the exported JPEG image are less than the pixel dimensions in the original image? The only way that can happen is if you are resizing the image. If I export a raw image with no image sizing options selected, the pixel dimensions of the exported JPEG are precisely the same as the original raw file. However, the megapixel size of the JPEG file is significantly smaller than the megapixel size of the raw file. Converting to DNG and then exporting as JPEG should have no impact. And from what you indicated, you are comparing file size, not pixel dimensions of the image. The JPEG image will always be smaller than the raw file. The DNG file will be smaller, so it will make it appear that the conversion is more "normal". But it seems to me that you are comparing two different things, pixel dimensions and file size. And those comparisons are invalid.

Poste

New Participant

I too am having this issue with Lightroom 5. My files shot in RAW are huge but upon exporting are downsizing to under 3 MB. I understand that the JPEG are smaller, but that should be by 40% or so. My 17 MB files should downsize to 6 MB ( approx), 24 MB files should downsize to 10ish. Any and all downsize to under 3 MB.

I have even gone back and attempted to "re-export" files that I have previously exported which exported at the correct size and they too are now down sizing to under 3 MB. My 24MB files are downsizing to 1.8-2.4 MB files. I do not have file re sizing checked. Have JPEG at 100 % quality. Not sure why this is happening.

Is this a lightroom issue?! Anyone else having this problem?!?! or know what the issue is?!?! Help please!

D

dj_paige

Brainiac

I too am having this issue with Lightroom 5. My files shot in RAW are huge but upon exporting are downsizing to under 3 MB. I understand that the JPEG are smaller, but that should be by 40% or so.

I don't agree with the 40% number. I never heard that before, and as I said, the size of the JPG depends on things you can control and things you can't control. So I see nothing wrong with a 3MB JPG in your case.

The idea that you, a human users of the software, can pre-determine a "correct size" for a JPG export is, in my opinion, wrong. Lightroom applies the JPG algorithm to your photos, and I have never yet seen a case where LR (or any other software) improperly sizes your JPGs given the settings in the Export dialog box.

Lastly, I don't think you can judge quality by the size of the exported JPG file. If you go down this path, it will only mislead you. The proper way to judge the quality of your images is to see if they have enough pixels for the intended purpose, and did you select the proper options in the Export dialog box (quality, resizing or not, sharpening, etc.)

Poste

New Participant

I understand I cannot judge the size a photo should be as such but I think I do have a fairly good understanding of where file size usually ended up. As I said, I re exported some files that I had exported before which came out to 7 ish MB and upon exporting now, they came out under 3MB. Not an issue before, issue now. I have done nothing more to the photos , exported with the exact same settings and the "newly exported" files are half the size they were previously. If I have changed nothing, then the files should export at the same size and with the new update, they do not!! I have selected the proper settings in teh dialog box, ie. JPEG, 100 quality, non sharpened, no resizing, so this should not happen in my estimation. I shoot for stock photos and with the current exporting issue, cannot even upload photos as they are rejected "due to size". I should not have to re size the files as they are "large enough" in RAW format to export in correct size as a JPEG. This is not an issue with Photoshop. Any photos directly imported into photoshop, when saved are around the size I expect but...if I open the photos from lightroom into photoshop, they are much smaller. This seems to tell me there is an issue when files are uploaded into lightroom!

D

dj_paigeCorrect answer

Brainiac

File size is not an indicator of image quality! You are looking at the wrong measure.

File size is determined by the number of pixels you have, the quality slider in the Export dialog box, and about a dozen other things, most of which you can't control.

You want to look at the number of pixels (height and width) and not the file size.

Is it impossible to maintain original file size to preserve image quality?

Not only is it impossible, it is also meaningless (see above)

Will this smaller file size have negative impact on prints?

Instead of looking at the file size, you need to look at the number of pixels in the exported photo (width and height), and this will determine if you will get a decent print. The usual standard is that you need 300 pixels per inch.

L

lehib95363884

New Participant

Not sure how this got upvoted because it's not the answer! All my photos are suddenly unable to be opened in photoshop at their original file size. They are all opening as thumbnails!!!

D

dj_paige

Brainiac

@lehib95363884start a new thread. Describe your problem in detail. People will be happy to help you in a new thread. Do not continue to discuss your problem in the current thread.

Show more replies

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded