Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I recently had to reinstall Adobe CC and now when I am exporting the jpegs from Lightroom they are much smaller in size than the full sized RAW Image. I chose to export at the highest image quality, did NOT select to resize the image to fit, and chose resolution of 300 per inch. The RAW image is 34 MB and the jpegs are ending up around 5 or 6 MB (they used to be 12-14). Can anyone help with this?
Thanks!
An excellent link to explain JPG compression and quality- (Note: many of the images are interactive)
Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings
And "selecting a resolution..." is pointless for a digital image- Pixel dimensions are the all-important specification.
(Only Print shops think they need a ppi resolution embedded in a photo file.)
My analogy to explain 'ppi' is a football team- It does not matter if the team is crushed in the changing room or spread ou
...Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi Jessie,
If you are not resizing then you would not be selecting a resolution you would only be selecting to export to jpeg.
There is a check mark also available that you might have checked that has a file size limit. It might be what is the culprit.
I am wondering if either you really are resizing on the export by adding in the resolution or if you have a file size limit.
Meredith
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
In addition to what Meredith already said: The file size of jpg's is dependent on the contents of an image and can heavily vary also due to the compression algorithms used.
Of course, a jpg always is much smaller than a RAW which is absolutely normal.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
An excellent link to explain JPG compression and quality- (Note: many of the images are interactive)
Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings
And "selecting a resolution..." is pointless for a digital image- Pixel dimensions are the all-important specification.
(Only Print shops think they need a ppi resolution embedded in a photo file.)
My analogy to explain 'ppi' is a football team- It does not matter if the team is crushed in the changing room or spread out over the field, it is still the same team (the same pixels). 'ppi' only affects the size of a print when you put those same pixels on paper.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi Jesse, I have just experienced this problem after the update. Have you managed to find a proper answer to your question yet? I am going out of my mind. Please let us know if you have resolved the issue and how. I have spent hours trouble shooting today and no fix yet. Thanks.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hello Ray, Can you state your particular problem as you see it? Please state more details.
Does the answer marked as Correct not answer your 'same' problem?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The file size of a jpg depends on three factors:
Images with large flat areas (like a blue sky) will have a relatively small file size - images with lots of busy sharp detail (or noise) will have a relatively large file size. This is how jpg compression works.
The difference in file size can be quite dramatic, 5x or more.
Other than that, you can't really compare the size of a raw file (12 or 14-bit, one channel) with jpg (8-bit, three channels).
For more information, see File formats and What is a digital image?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I know. Would it be possible to WeTransfer 2 files to you or someone to repeat the exercise and thereby prove that it is not my files for starters? Then we can do screenshots of setting?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
First of all, you need to tell us exactly what problem you're having.
If it is the file size of a jpg, tell us the pixel dimensions, quality setting used and the file size.
If the jpg is less than 8 MB, you can post it here.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I just typed a long explanation to Woberic and it got deleted. I am going to have to start all over again.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I will use the example of a file that I am working on now and compare it with one other that I recently worked on. The Raw file is 27,4 MB, and after a very subtle crop I end up with a JPEG of 8,23 MB. This seems a huge drop in size. I am working with a new camera, and I don't know if that makes a difference, but I am used to getting much larger JPEGS from the RAW.
I am required by my camera club to resize the images that I submit for judging to a spec - File size to be a maximum of 1920 on the widest edge of a landscape image or 1080 pixels on the longest edge of a portrait image. File size not to exceed 2Mb. I do my resizing in Photosop and I am getting tiny files from that, of less than 500kb. Historically, I would get files of around 1 to 2 MB. Of course I can't submit these tiny images. Also, I don't know how well an 8MB image will print on a large scale, such as a big canvas.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The file size of a jpg is not an indicator of image quality.
As stated by several people in this thread, the file size of a jpg will vary greatly depending on image content.
So if you are getting smaller files than you used to (pixel dimensions and quality setting being the same), then you have more flat or smooth areas and/or less sharp detail or noise than in the images than you did previously.
Did you go to this page File formats and look at the sample images there?
So when someone asks for jpgs above or below a certain file size, they don't understand how jpg compression works.
What they should be asking for is pixel dimensions - which are the only numbers that matter, and that to some degree are an indication of image quality.
I do my resizing in Photosop
It's much easier to do the resizing in the Export dialog in Lightroom, then you might not have to use Photoshop at all.
Of course I can't submit these tiny images.
Of course you can.
If you have a used a high quality setting, the images will be fine.
Also, I don't know how well an 8MB image will print on a large scale, such as a big canvas.
It's easy to compare the quality of a jpg to the original.
View both at 1:1 (100%) magnification. If you have exported at 100 quality, you will probably not see any difference at all.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you very much for explaining this in detail. However, the small, resized JPEGS do not magnify to the same degree as the larger files 1:1. Surely that means they will project as smaller images on the screen? I apologize if I am slow to learn but I don't get it.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The resized jpgs will of course display smaller since they have smaller pixel dimensions, and can't really be compared to the original.
But you can still assess their quality at 1:1. You should make it a habit to always examine your images at 1:1 - this is the only view that gives you a true impression of the image, because one image pixel is represented by one screen pixel.
What I was referring to was jpgs exported without resizing - same pixel dimensions as the original - where you can do a valid comparison at 1:1. If you have exported at 100 quality, you will probably not see any difference at all, regardless of the jpg's file size.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you. I have resolved my issues with help from both of you today. It was my lack of understanding and your explanations have helped.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Why do you crop and resize in PS - this makes no sense?
With your setting you export a jpg in its full resolution (size in pixel) available post-crop in LR and with the minimum compression and highest jpg quality available.
Depending on the contents of the photo and the pixel size, this of course will return a rather large jpg.
Did you read the already posted blog post? Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings
Read it again.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you. The reason why I do the resizing in PS is because I am doing the final editing in PS. I am a beginner user. I don't know my way around the software, so it is helpful for me to get your advice now to export jpg from LR instead. Now I must think of the logistics. So I would import the Tiff file and save a Jpg from that rather? Is that the methodology?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
What does your final editing involve?
If you're a beginner you were better off staying in LR and do not involve PS - except for manipulations that need PS, but since you're a beginner I believe that's not the case here.
What is your workflow? What is the source of the photos?
A usual workflow: Camera -> Import to Lightroom -> Develop/Crop... -> Export (with resizing if needed)
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
This is my workflow now: Camera -> Import to Lightroom -> Develop/Crop -> Edit in Photoshop -> Export Tiff File -> Import to Lightroom -> Export to Jpg (with resizing if needed)
It was way clumsier before and I only just learnt how to resize in LR in the last ten minutes.
Thank you for your help. I think I have managed to resolve my issues with your input and Per Berntsen's. I find the science quite confusing, so that blog was not an easy read but I have bookmarked it and hopefully as my knowledge increases, I will understand it more.
Find more inspiration, events, and resources on the new Adobe Community
Explore Now