Processed Raw files to jpgs are huge

[John Di Leo]

This is strange, I hope I am describing this properly,

I shoot in RAW, Nikon D810, Lightroom, no change in camera equipment or software or technique excepat as noted below.

I recently added a Wacom Intuos Pro S to my post processing. Prior to the wacom I was using a trackpad.

Since the Wacom, my edited jpgs have remarkably increased in size. Prior to the Wacom, out of the camera the RAW files were 42-ish mB and they still are. The pre-Wacom edited jpgs would range from maybe 3mB to ~~12-15mB.

Since the Wacom my edited files are rarely under 8mB and usually 38ish mB. The Wacom is the only change I have made, but I cannot see how that would make a difference. I've looked at the mediainfo data and other than some edited sizes being different I see nothing. The edited sizes are in the same range as my pre-wacom images.

Is there something I can look at for comparison, or does anyone have any idea what's going on? It's really puzzling me.

TIA

[Ed_Ingold]

For the same pixel count, the finer the detail, the larger the JPEG file. However the most significant size factor is the quality level (1-12), ie, the level of compression. You may have a choice of low, middle and high quality for in-camera JPEG conversions.

[rodeo_joe1]

The number of colours/tones in an image also affect the JPEG size. Could it have something to do with the stylus-pad pressure sensitivity adding subtle gradations of tone/colour into the edit?

[mikemorrell]

I have no idea what's going on either. What I've picked up over the years is that jpeg compression works by averaging RAW pixels of similar luminosity and color into larger 'blocks'. In general. the lower the jpeg quality setting, the larger the blocks (and smaller the file) will be and vice versa. But it's also true that that a photo with large areas of similar luminosity and color (think "sky") will be of smaller size in jpeg that a photo with lots of detailed tone and color differences.

 

So without ever having used a drawing tablet, my gut feeling is that it is creating finer, higher resolution differences in your edited file than your trackpad could. To reduce the jpeg file size, my guess is that you should first check your Wacom pen resolution settings (not too fine). Secondly adjust your jpeg quality settings as necessary. The combination of both determine the resolution and size of the jpeg.

 

Re-reading this, it sounds as if I know what I'm talking about. Which I don't. Still, it's worth a try :)

 

Mike

[ed_farmer]

Your Wacom tablet has absolutely NOTHING to do with the problem . . . Sort of . . .

 

What is likely is that you inadvertently changed some value to a new default while you were poking about with the tablet pen. It's very easy, compared to mouse buttons, to drag or click something without noticing.

 

You included nothing about what software you are using but I suspect that there is some gui in the SAVE or CONVERT or whatever command whatever software you are using, where you changed the compression level or clicked a checkbox or something.

 

I would go through the process and carefully review all of the information being used to create your JPEGs.

[John Di Leo]

Thanks for the suggestions, Much appreciated. The absolute sizes don't really bother me, but the suspicion that I am doing something inadvertently gets me.

 

The number of colours/tones in an image also affect the JPEG size. Could it have something to do with the stylus-pad pressure sensitivity adding subtle gradations of tone/colour into the edit?

I definitely did that, ie, varied stylus pressure. I am just getting used to it so there was some amount of finding the sweet spots for pressure, some very hard, some very soft.

 

Your Wacom tablet has absolutely NOTHING to do with the problem . . . Sort of . . .

What is likely is that you inadvertently changed some value to a new default while you were poking about with the tablet pen. It's very easy, compared to mouse buttons, to drag or click something without noticing.

I am not aware that I did that (and I don't know that I did not), but you are SO right about hitting something inadvertently, dragging something, untoward taps and hits, so, I could have without being aware I did. I am typically not ham fisted handling this stuff, but there is a muscle memory learning curve for the stylus, much more than I thought there'd be. IOW that could have happened??

 

You included nothing about what software you are using but I suspect that there is some gui in the SAVE or CONVERT or whatever command whatever software you are using, where you changed the compression level or clicked a checkbox or something.

Camera settings were the same, shooting straight RAW, no accompanying jpg. ONly LR for post and no changes to the export dialog. No other software involved.

 

I would go through the process and carefully review all of the information being used to create your JPEGs.

 

I will do that. I used the mediainfo app to examine, and am including 2 screenshots. I notice on the top one it is describing the image as "video" and the other as "image." The left one is before the Wacom was used. Both jpgs, both stills. The Wacom was used on the right one

[bgelfand]

ONly LR for post and no changes to the export dialog. No other software involved.

 

I suspect an inadvertent change in the export dialog. It is the obvious place to look, but the change may not be obvious. In the Image Sizing box (drop down box) you not only have the choice of dimensions in numbers, but also the units of measure of those numbers. If you resize to say 1000 x 1000, it makes a big difference if you inadvertently change the unit of measure from "pixels" to inches in the drop down box that follows the numbers. Likewise the Resolution box can have either pixels per inch or pixels per centimeter (this is the place I would look first). A Resolution of 240 pixels per centimeter will produce a much larger file than 240 pixels per inch. It is very easy to change the unit of measure and not notice it.

[rodeo_joe1]

You could easily eliminate the (if any) effect of pressure sensitivity by turning that option off.

A Resolution of 240 pixels per centimeter will produce a much larger file than 240 pixels per inch.

Really? Surely the file size only depends on the absolute pixel number, not how big those pixels are displayed or printed?

 

And wouldn't the OP have noticed the number of pixels growing by a factor of over 6 times?

Edited January 3, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Ed_Ingold]

Check the quality setting (1-100) in Lightroom JPEG Export. Starting with a Sony RAW file, 42 MP and 85.5 MB, a JPEG at the same resolution and 100% quality is 63.7 MB, and 14.7 MB at 50% quality. The camera has similar settings, but condensed into low - middle - high, or something to that effect. I notice in the OP's example that the aspect ratios and pixel count are different.

 

If the resolution is changed without resampling, the number of pixels (hence file size) remains the same, but the nominal frame size is inversely proportional to the resolution.

[bgelfand]

Really? Surely the file size only depends on the absolute pixel number, not how big those pixels are displayed or printed?

 

First, I am using Lightroom 6.14. If you are using Lightroom CC or the equivalent, your settings may be different.

 

In the export dialog if you have the "Resize to Fit" box checked and you specify the Width x Height in the unit of measure other than pixels, then defining resolution in pixels/cm will create a larger file than the same numerical value in pixels/inch. I conclusively proved this to myself through (inadvertent) experimentation. I wondered why my image would not post to the Nature Unlimited forum. :-)

 

And wouldn't the OP have noticed the number of pixels growing by a factor of over 6 times?

 

The OP did notice his files growing; that was the start of this thread. Since JPEG is a compressed format, although the number of pixels to be compressed may have grown by a factor of six, the compressed form - the JPEG - would grow by considerably less.

 

I do not suggest my solution is the only one or even the correct one, but I think it merits investigation by the OP.

[john_wheeler6]

Hi John Di Leo

Can you provide via a file sharing site (e.g. Dropbox) an example of an image pre-Wacom and post Wacom for forum members to do some forensics.

The size of the JPEG has to do with the image pixel dimensions, compression level, and the level of higher frequency components in the image itself. Remote possibility that there is a ton of metadata store with your JPEG yet that would be unusual. Having the files to compare might allow forum members to more quickly track down your issue.

 

You could also edit one image with your trackpad and another with the Wacom to see if there is any significant difference as well. The Wacom being added may have nothing to do with the size increase.

Just some quick suggestions

 

BTW - I noticed that you are using YUV color space. Is that your preferred color space. I still see most use some standard RGB color space

[John Di Leo]

Thanks all. I do not have the resize image box checked in export, image quality is always set at 100.

I will look at posting to dropbox and post a link when done...thanks

[John Di Leo]

The file settings box in the export dialog is set for AdobeRGB(1998).

I will need to shoot a test, create a copy, process one with the trackpad and one with the Wacom, and then I will post. I suppose if they come out the same size, then my origanal question becomes moot and it is just all the different things that make one picture different from another.

Thanks again for all the input

[Ed_Ingold]

RGB images are converted to YUV for compression, then displayed in RGB with the assigned ICC color space. Most of the spacial information is in the "Y" (luminance) channel, which is probably prioritized over color detail. Using "MediaInfo" software, I see that the highest quality JPEG in Lightroom uses 4,4,4 color subsampling, but at 50%, it uses 4,2,0. To make things even more confusing, not all JPEG converters are the same. JPEG uses lossy compression, with choices just what information to throw away.

 

I find that JPEG size varies about +/- 10% depending on content. I suspect that a blank whiteboard shot would be smaller, if you tend to the avant-garde style. Really large differences are due to other things.

 

Size can be quantified with a simple equation: Resolution x length = pixels. If you pick any two variables, the third is dependent.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Ed_Ingold

[digitaldog]

First, I am using Lightroom 6.14. If you are using Lightroom CC or the equivalent, your settings may be different.

In the export dialog if you have the "Resize to Fit" box checked and you specify the Width x Height in the unit of measure other than pixels, then defining resolution in pixels/cm will create a larger file than the same numerical value in pixels/inch. I conclusively proved this to myself through (inadvertent) experimentation. I wondered why my image would not post to the Nature Unlimited forum. :)

Correct and no different in the latest version of LR. What you're doing when so set is allowing LR to interpolate to a 'size' using the PPI values. If set to simply change the PPI tag (not allowing LR to interpolate), the PPI setting doesn't change the size whatsoever; it's just a tag.

It's far clearer in say Photoshop when you have a check box (resample) to interpolate, telling PS: Go ahead, make or delete pixels but it's not so obvious in LR's export. :(

[digitaldog]

Thanks all. I do not have the resize image box checked in export, image quality is always set at 100.

I will look at posting to dropbox and post a link when done...thanks

FWIW, you really don't need it set at 100:

Lightroom JPEG Export-Quality Settings, Full-Resolution Examples

[John Di Leo]

@digitaldog Pardon the perhaps stupid question: What does "quality" refer to or do?

[John Di Leo]

sorry, hit send too quickly...I've read through your blog on LR's Quality Settings and can see the differences you note. Other than banding are there any other real-world noticeable quality differences you've noticed?

you state:

The Lightroom default JPEG export quality of 75, falling in the 70〜76 range, seems to provide for as good a visible result as the highest quality setting

What about for printing? Does the quality setting play the same or a different role there, ie, becoming more important or not?

[digitaldog]

@digitaldog Pardon the perhaps stupid question: What does "quality" refer to or do?

The slider for exporting a JPEG; no need to set it to 100 as shown.

For printing, you'll be hard pressed to find a setting recommended by Jeffery having any effect FROM high bit data.

[John Di Leo]

The slider for exporting a JPEG; no need to set it to 100 as shown.

For printing, you'll be hard pressed to find a setting recommended by Jeffery having any effect FROM high bit data.

Sorry, don't understand.

From what you're saying, the "quality" slider does not do much, so might as well set it at 75 or so to help keep file size down--unless the image demonstrably demands a higher setting, eg to prevent banding? Is that correct?

 

And it would appear you are not Jeffery. 8)

[digitaldog]

I'm not Jeffrey. Did you read what Jeffrey wrote?

[paddler4]

The first line in the page to which Andrew linked has a link to a page posted earlier by Jeffrey. That earlier page is the place to start.

 

Because storage is cheap, my conclusion after reading that post some years ago was to use a LR setting in the 85-92 range when I create JPEGs (which is not often). I think my export for stuff I post online is set for 87.

[John Di Leo]

So, I've been playing with the wacom vs trackpad for processing the same picture with similar processing. It seems that there is not much of a difference if any in output size with the 2 input methods. I have not seen the trackpad to be bigger, but that could be due to the superior editing capabilities of the Wacom, putting more subtle changes in the process.