Red and Blue

by Gordon

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

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 ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


9

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 ...


8

If you are saving to JPEG after processing check your compression settings. File size can climb astonishingly high the closer you get to 100% quality without any noticeable difference in quality. Dropping it down to around 90% can cut file size quite a bit.


7

It sounds like she's saving uncompressed TIFs. Ps will give you various options such as LZW or ZIP compression when you save. Since TIFF is lossless you can safely choose any of them. JPEG is not a good alternative as it is lossy; you will lose image quality.


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

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

This explanation over at PetaPixel goes into the "how and why" of ISO impacting file size. Basically, more noise means more unique data and therefore a larger file.


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.


5

JPEG is a lossy format and it has variable quality levels which result in larger or smaller file sizes. Whenever you save a file in a lossy format, additional detail is lost, so even though you saved the finished version as a higher quality JPEG, it is still actually lower quality than the original was, despite the growth in the file size. It is still ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


4

JPG is a compressed, lossy file format, but it is not magic! 940 x 885 pixles in 8-bit RGB color means that the uncompressed image is about 940 x 885 x 3 bytes = ca 2.5 megabytes. You are trying to compress this to 20 kilobytes, which means that you are looking for more than a 1000:1 compression rate. This is just not going to happen unless the image file is ...


4

When you open a JPEG file that was originally saved to a given quality, it will be decoded and decompressed to a certain image in Photoshop. That becomes the new "original" when you save the second time. When you save that image at 100% quality Photoshop tries to preserve whatever image it is as close as possible. You aren't getting the quality of the ...


4

The main difference I see is that they're saved with different JPEG quality parameters - the smaller file has quality 91 (according to GIMP), whereas the larger file has quality 99. File size can grow pretty exponentially at high quality parameters. Resaving the larger file at quality 91 reduces it to around 2.2 Mb, which while still significantly bigger ...


4

An expert said I should use at least 24MB pictures for stock. You sure the "expert" meant 24 MB, not MP? I don't know much about the higher MP cameras, but I can't imagine anything but maybe the 36 MP Nikon D800 having a 24MB file size. If you take a look at Nikon's official website, you'll see file-sizes ranging from 17 to 29 MB. If it's true that you ...


4

In general, it's a safe bet that this information is stored in the RAW file itself. With Canon, the preview is 1/4 the size of the original and a fairly heavily compressed JPEG, so I wouldn't worry about size.


4

Most RAW files include a thumbnail for easy preview without having to process the image. It is not full resolution and is heavily compressed, so you don't need to really worry about the space consumption. Without it, nothing that doesn't know how to process RAW files would be able to show what the file contains. Ultimately, it is up to the camera if it ...


4

JPEG file size is a meaningless measure, except as an optimization criterion for bandwith/diskspace considerations. Since JPEG is optimized to compress areas with little detail, while preserving fine detail, compression is dependent on the details in the image. There is no way you could produce a 20mb file from eg. a plain white image, no matter the ...



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