Jpeg size smaller exporting from lightroom compared to capture one

[Diggedydawg]

Ive just started using lightroom classic again after using Capture one for a few years and ive noticed my exports are half the size of the capture one exports.  Both photos are 24Mp set to export at original size, 300 ppi and 100% quality, sRGB. 

Lightroom exports at 8.27Mb and capture one export for the same photo is 16.5Mb

Any ideas what could be causing this?

[dj_paige]

Really, spending time worrying about the JPG file size is meaningless as the file size tells you nothing. You can't determine "quality" from the size of the JPG. Concentrate on selecting the right settings. If you're still concerned, LOOK AT the exported photo rather than the size of the JPG.

Also, although you stated that some settings are identical, there are other settings you don't mention, which could cause the difference as well. Get the settings right, don't worry about the file size.

[Diggedydawg]

Both the same settings.

Whilst I wouldnt worry if it was maybe a 10% difference, we are talking 50% smaller here which tells me theres a problem.  

And the settings are right, and ive also looked at the image.  

What settings do you have in mind that I havnt mentioned that you feel ive missed?  your answers a bit vague

[Diggedydawg]

1

[dj_paige]

They may not be the same settings. You didn't mention sharpening. And there are probably other differences that I can't think of right now. and there's no real guarantee that Lightroom Classic and Capture One use the same algorithms anyway.

But anyway, you are still making the mistake that JPG file size has any meaning whatsoever. You need to LOOK AT the exported images with your own eyes and judge if there is a quality difference.

[johnrellis]

To build on dj_paige's replies, the two programs use different JPEG compression algorithms, so 100% in one program doesn't mean the same thing in the other.

More importantly, in LR the difference in image quality between 85% and 100% is almost never detectable by someone not peeping at individual pixels, and most of the time you can't tell the difference between 75% and 85%.  Further, using 100% will cause the exported file to be needlessly huge. 

See this article for an in-depth discussion of the LR quality setting:

http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

[Use the reply button under the first post to ensure replies sort properly.]

[Diggedydawg]

guys whilst i do appreciate the advice about size, quality etc, ive been in photography a long time so im comfortable with what I need to do when exporting images in terms or web display, printing etc so I know file size isnt the be all and end all.

Totally get the compression too and if it had been around the 10-20% mark then I wouldnt be really bothered but im not convinced LR has 50% compression over capture one and is still able to retain the same data.

I just want to add, I will be delivering these files to clients.  If there is a problem with their file and the quality is poor when they come to print due to some LR glitch then I need to figure it out before we get there.

I used LR for years before switching to C1 and didnt have this crop up, this is the first job ive ran since subscribing to Adobe again

[dj_paige]

"Totally get the compression too and if it had been around the 10-20% mark then I wouldnt be really bothered but im not convinced LR has 50% compression over capture one and is still able to retain the same data."

Sorry, this simply is not correct.

This study shows you can have HUGE file size differences and no visible quality difference. http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

[Diggedydawg]

read that a couple of times, it doesnt solve or even address my initial question.  

With all due respect, your answers are pretty condesending and not in the least bit helpful.  You would rather argue with me than actually answer my question

I asked why my file sizes were being exported at half size compared to capture one.  Please either stick to the topic or refrain from responding, it really shouldnt be that difficult

[johnrellis]

"but im not convinced LR has 50% compression over capture one and is still able to retain the same data."

I find it quite plausible that with quality 100 in both algorithms, there would be no difference in perceptible visual quality, even though one file is half the size of the other.

It's common with JPEG compression algorithms that the top settings on their quality scales don't produce visually perceptible differences (e.g. 10, 11, and 12 in Photoshop, 85-92 and 93-100 in LR), even though they produce dramatic differences in file size.  (Photoshop labels 10 as "Maximum", even though there are settings 11 and 12.) Capture One may have chosen much different JPEG compression parameters for its top settings than LR.

For example, in the article I linked above, in LR it's very hard or impossible to see visual differences between 77-84 and 93-100, yet in the photos evaluated, the former can be 50 - 77% smaller.    That is, a photo half the size or smaller has the same perceived quality.

Without a detailed comparison of a set of photos at various scale settings from the two algorithms, though, it's hard to come to any authoritative conclusions. If you see a perceptible difference between LR 100 and Capture One 100 on an image, why don't you upload the two exported images to Dropbox or similar and post the link here.

[Use the reply button under the first post to ensure replies sort properly.]

[Todd Shaner]

In the Capture One Export window there is an option for 'Create thumbnails on save.' Try unchecking it and re-export the file. One would think the thumbnail size should be small, but the JPEG specification does not set a limit on its size. LR does not embed a thumbnail image in the JPEG export file.