Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

27

In general, photos at lower ISOs will have less noise. This means that they compress better (remember that RAW files have lossless compression) and so, on average, you'll be able to fit more images onto the card. The other important thing to remember is that the number shown is only an estimate - how many images actually fit depends on what you take photos ...


18

The reason you got confused is that it's not the file size that is displayed in Photoshop. Photoshop's status bar shows uncompressed size of image. With three 8-bit color channels, that's 3 bytes per pixel, resulting 34.9 MB for a 4288 x 2848 image from your camera. JPEG is a compressed format, so the actual file is smaller. Showing compressed size would ...


14

Did you use the CF card in your computer and either store non-picture files on it, or delete the files without emptying the trash / recycle bin when you were done? A bunch of hidden files can fill up the card's space pretty quickly (happened to me a couple weekends ago; luckily I always carry a spare). It could also be a corrupted card, and some sectors ...


12

The first two images both have embedded color profiles. The smaller one has Adobe RGB, and the larger one has "TIFF RGB", which happens to consume more space. My guess is you probably want these to be sRGB anyway, with no embedded color profile. In the second case, it's the details. The hand photograph has big areas of the same color, a lot of blur, and ...


12

I would say TIFF is probably the best format. JPEG 2000, like JPEG, is still a lossy compressed format when you really try to save space (the lossless version can compress a bit, but not nearly as much as the lossy form, and some forms of the "lossless" wavelet compression still can't fully reproduce the exact original image.) When scanning in an original ...


12

If you save a JPEG image with an extremely low quality level, you WILL get compression artifacts. Its just a simple fact of JPEG lossy compression. If you wish to avoid compression artifacts, use a higher quality setting than 2. You won't need to save at maximum quality, as most images can be saved with a fairly low quality setting without noticeable loss in ...


9

No, it doesn't work that way. The image file isn't built up as the exposure goes on, but rather is made from a full read of the sensor when the exposure is complete. So, you're not writing more data to the memory card when you expose for a longer time. Each photosite — one "pixel" on the sensor — is a counter that goes up as it's hit by more photons. It's ...


8

File size, quality, resolution - pick any two. If you had images in an uncompressed format like BMP, then you could make them a bit smaller without sacrificing any quality or resolution by saving them in a compressed format that doesn't do lossy compression, like PNG-24. JPEG images are already compressed, so with the given quality and resultion they are ...


5

Two images with the same dimensions contain the same amount of data but not necessarily the same amount of information. A pure white image contains virtually no information and can be compressed into a very small space (it is sufficient to store only the height and width in order to fully recreate this image). Scenes with a lot of detail contain a lot of ...


5

PNG compression quality varies greatly from compressor to compressor. The standard PNG compression in Photoshop for example can sometimes commonly be beat by large percentage points. This is primarily due to more intelligent switching algorithms when it picks the kind of prediction to do for a certain set of pixels. Most of the "additional" compression is ...


5

Let's begin with a notion: compressors are able to reduce the size of something (like a text file) by processing it and representing the same information using less symbols. It's the way Zip makes a text-file smaller. This is lossless compression. Pictures and audio (and, so, video) uses a very big ammount of information: for example, a 5 megapixels ...


5

Suppose you want to dedicate 50gb to photos. (50gb * 1024 mb/gb)/SIZE_OF_PHOTO, for my d7000 I get a result of about 2k photos. The 'easy' way is to just select a chunk of your image library, find the size and then see how many pictures it is. If you want more space used, select more pictures from the library.


5

On the export dialog, set your image sizing (I set mine as you requested). Then click the add button in the bottom left hand corner of the dialog. Set its name And you are all set.


4

What format are you saving the files in? If you're saving as TIFF or PSD, you could instead try saving to JPEG, which will be much smaller. If you're using JPEG and the files are still over 15 MB, those must be some HUGE images. (Flickr is probably just going to convert the file to JPEG anyways to save on bandwidth when serving the images, so it's not like ...


4

The only thing that stands out to me is to ensure the final exported TIFFs are flattened--unless the customer or printer specifically requested layers for further processing. Non-destructive editing is usually a necessity and thus preserving originals and/or intermediate work products in lossless formats. Working with high resolution images means you're ...


4

The fact that the image file gets smaller tells you that you are losing quality. The JPEG format is optimised for a size vs. quality compromise, so the file size is more or less a direct measure of the quality. If you view the image and zoom to 1:1 scale or more, you can usually see the artifacts caused by the JPEG compression. The compression works by ...


4

The comments have really answered the question here: The behaviour you're seeing is as you should expect. The settings for adjustment layers alone have no equivalence in any of the TIFF content standards. TIFF does allow for vendor specific extensions and this would be an example of one but saving to a nonstandard TIFF would be pointless if nobody could ...


3

JPEG compression says how much details to throw away, not how much to keep. With the same amount of details thrown away, two different images will be left with different amount of details. The storage is generally proportional to the amount of details left in the image after compression. In your second set, the second image clearly has more details. This ...


3

Saving TIFF files doesn't make sense to me. The original RAW is more space-efficient, and of course contains all the inforation to be had. I save the original RAW file and one or more post-processed JPG results. If I want to go back and make a version that's a little darker, more snappy contrast, more detail in the clouds, or whatever, I do that by going ...


3

The DPI reported in a JPEG file is just a metadata field. That is, it's intended to offer a hint to software that displays or prints image files, but it's not immutable, in practice it's not authoritative or enforced, and it's usually ignored by most software and photographers alike. The actual DPI of a displayed image is determined by the absolute ...


3

Besides the algorithms described in other answers, small images' file sizes can be reduced by stripping out metadata from the file. EXIF/IPTC data can add up to 64 kilobytes to a JPEG image.


3

38 GB is what is needed for the photos alone. This is based on the largest JPEG and NEF files I have from the Nikon D5100. Add video and you are over, so much so that I think you would be tight with 64GB and should go with the a 128 GB version. I have both a 400X and 133X version of the Lexar 128GB SDXC professional and they worked flawlessly until now. ...


3

In your specific example: bump up the quality, or shrink the image, and strip out all metadata (including color profile information). You're taking a image that is roughly 8MB in size (raw pixel data: 1920px x 1024px x 32bpp / 8b/M) and trying to shrink it to less than 300k, which is a reduction of over 26 times. This is a difficult task to do without ...


3

You have already gotten plenty of good answers. I do wish to add that there should be a separation between the size of your images, the size of your in working files and the size of the images you share: Size of your images: That is the size of the output of your camera. Usually 5-10 MB for JPEGs and 10-24 MB for RAW files. This is the amount of data your ...


3

There are two settings that affect JPEG file size, resolution and compression. Experiment with both these settings until you get a balance between the two that works for you. All other things being equal, I usually compress my images more rather than resizing them more, however Flickr has size limits that may affect your choice here. Always remember to ...


3

Yes quality will most likely be lost. The JPEG format implements lossy compression, i.e. data integrity is traded off against filesize. When saving a JPEG you can usually decide what quality setting to use, and thus how much to compress the files, it sounds like MsPaint is using a default quality value which is lower than the quality setting of the files ...


3

Multiple encodings with any lossy format will result in additional quality loss. This is what is called generations of loss and is a concept that dates back to analog techniques where each time you made a copy, the quality of the copy was inferior to that of the original. Digital tools allows us to avoid generational quality loss when using lossless ...


3

On the import tab choose "Copy" instead of "Copy as DNG", then you will retain the large data amount. One of the benefits of using DNG is that it uses less space. But normally it is only a 20% improvement. It would be helpful to know your camera model, so we can see waht raw format it is (compression or not, number of previews, etc.. The raws contains ...


3

Even if you knew the exact amount of free space remaining on your memory card you could still only guess the approximate number of remaining frames you could add to the card. It is, in fact, exactly what your camera is already doing for you. This is because even RAW files are compressed, albeit losslessly, and so the exact size of a file depends upon the ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible