File sizes smaller, shot in Jpeg

jonbeeza

jonbeeza

Messages
9,389
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I did do a search on the forum, but I found nothing on the topic...

When taking photos with my Fuji XF10 in Jpeg at the highest setting, the biggest file size is about 5.37MB as I said, the setting is the highest and at 6000x4000.
But when I convert a file from RAW at the highest setting and again at 6000x4000, the file sizes are about 18.8MB.

I did not realise shooting in Jpeg the file size would be so small, so the image should be nowhere near as good as the much bigger converted Jpeg.
Would this be the case? :thinking:

I know the RAW captures more detail, but I did not realise it was more than three times as much.
 
It would depend on how ‘compressible’ the file is, and also what compression options you use
 
boyfalldown said:
It would depend on how ‘compressible’ the file is, and also what compression options you use
Click to expand...

I set the best in camera Jpeg setting of fine and L :3:2 dimensions, and this gives a file size of about 5.37MB as opposed to about 18.8MB when converted from a RAW file.
 
boyfalldown said:
It really does depend on the individual file
Click to expand...
JonathanRyan said:
Exactly.

Take a picture of a white sheet of paper. Take a picture of a bundle of sticks. Compare the jpeg sizes.
Click to expand...

Yes I did know that already, but the Jpeg is still nowhere near the size of one that has been converted from a RAW file. I was not comparing a Jpeg shot in different conditions, I was comparing a shot under the same conditions, just one in Jpeg and the other in RAW.
 
The point is, the Jpeg converted from a RAW file is bigger than a straight out of camera Jpeg at maximum quality available.
I already know the file size is not always the same, shot in either RAW or Jpeg, I did know in bright daylight the file sizes will be different that an indoor shot.

The indoor photos in Jpeg are about 4MP while the outdoor ones are about 7MP.

Just taken some RAW outdoors, and they are a massive 41MP unprocessed, and when I convert to Jpeg they are about 15MP to 20MP.

Looks like I will have to convert back to RAW, just in case I have some photos that I want to print off.
 
jonbeeza said:
Yes I did know that already, but the Jpeg is still nowhere near the size of one that has been converted from a RAW file. I was not comparing a Jpeg shot in different conditions, I was comparing a shot under the same conditions, just one in Jpeg and the other in RAW.
Click to expand...

I guess this just means your camera's jpeg resizing is a bit keener than from whatever software you're using, it is the same data to start with after all

This is a bit like saving from Photoshop at jpeg 12 or 11, 11 can be as much as 1/2 the size but there is no difference in even the biggest of prints

So really its, if the jpegs from the camera are fine and you're not bothered about raw processing them that's great :) If you need to raw process then just accept the non-camera software may save as a much bigger file, or (if Photoshop) save at quality 8-10 and save some space :)

I had a real shocker when a venue I shoot for printed a calendar from my shots at A4, but using the 'preview' images I'd sent them as 1,500px wide 350kb jpegs rather than the 'print' ones which were all 5,000+px and 5mb+; without putting your nose on them they all looked great and only a photographer would notice the slightest pixelation up close

Dave
 
The primary 'difference' as I see it are that:-
a) in camera ~ you are accepting the baked in camera manufacturers compression algorithm

b) by converting the raw in your favourite editing program you are choosing a different compression workflow.
 
Shoot JPG + raw, do the conversion you like on a raw file, print both results at A4, give the 2 prints to some people to compare WITHOUT telling them which you converted.
 
jonbeeza said:
Looks like I will have to convert back to RAW, just in case I have some photos that I want to print off.
Click to expand...

NOPE - not at all true, ok so perhaps if you wanted a print over 5ft wide it may be true, but only then to pixel-peepers :D

A similar 'quality' argument arises with editing a jpeg and re-saving it. The story goes that the new saved file degrades quickly and can become unusable after a while; and while there is truth in this it is, as most things, exaggerated

Many years ago I tried it myself when I had an A3 printer. I shot raw, edited and saved the jpeg at quality 11. I printed it, it was great. I then did the merest edit possible on the sky and resaved it, quality 11, but I did that 15 times, and printed it at 5x, 10x and 15x. ONLY on the 15x saved print could I see any difference at all. Oh and that was from my 12mp camera of the time

It's really not the problem so many think it is

Dave
 
jonbeeza said:
Yes I did know that already, but the Jpeg is still nowhere near the size of one that has been converted from a RAW file. I was not comparing a Jpeg shot in different conditions, I was comparing a shot under the same conditions, just one in Jpeg and the other in RAW.
Click to expand...

Ok. So you know raws are 16 (or maybe 14) bit and jpegs are 8? That's half the file size right there. Then compression.
 
DG Phototraining said:
The story goes that the new saved file degrades quickly and can become unusable after a while; and while there is truth in this it is, as most things, exaggerated
Click to expand...
It's worth clarifying that once you have saved a file, it can only be changed if you open it and then resave it.

Opening a .jpg file in an editor and then allowing the editor to re-save it may cause the compression to be revised and, done often enough, this will affect the image quality. My solution is to just save my .jpgs once to a master folder and only work on copies in a different folder. I think this may be what some editors do automatically but it's worth checking to make sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top