JPEG File Size

[prrs4me]

I have been using Canon's DPP to convert my RAW files to JPEGs.

When I convert my pictures from RAW to JPEG I am getting very large JPEG files.

I use Batch process
Kind of File-Exif-JPEG
Image Quality 10
Output Resolution 350 DPI
embed ICC profile.

My JPEGS are between 8-11 MP per picture. How can I make the files smaller without downgrading quality? What am I doing wrong?
I noticed that when I shoot in just JPEG the DPI is 72x72. Should I change it when I process from RAW? Or should I change the image quality?

HELP!

[jdepould]

You might try bumping the image quality down a little bit, it shouldn't drastically affect your images.

Also, if you don't care about the EXIF data, then you can eliminate that as well. I'm not sure how to do it in Canon's software, but Photoshop's "save for web" option removes EXIF.

[Jamesc359]

Removing the EXIF info won't save you much. Usually in the range of 5-20KB. Not hardly even worth mentioning, especially on an 8-11MB file.

I'd suggest lowering the image quality a little. Because of the way JPEGs are compressed there's diminishing returns on the higher quality settings. That is to say that the higher the quality setting doesn't always mean a significant increase in image quality. But it will result in a much larger file.

For most intents and purposes 80-90% is a good setting. 60-70% is usually good for larger thumbnails, down to about 50% for smaller thumbs.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Jamesc359

Removing the EXIF info won't save you much. Usually in the range of 5-20KB. Not hardly even worth mentioning, especially on an 8-11MB file.

I'd suggest lowering the image quality a little. Because of the way JPEGs are compressed there's diminishing returns on the higher quality settings. That is to say that the higher the quality setting doesn't always mean a significant increase in image quality. But it will result in a much larger file.

For most intents and purposes 80-90% is a good setting. 60-70% is usually good for larger thumbnails, down to about 50% for smaller thumbs.

wait, OP said 8-11MP . . . I'm confused?

[Jamesc359]

You're right, she did. I got the impression that she meant MB... I very well could be wrong.

[wulf]

What do you want to use the photos for? A lot of photographers will go for pictures that are as uncompressed as possible, often even eschewing the JPEG format for something that doesn't lose information every time you save it. After all, storage is pretty cheap.

Personally, I find that saving at about 80-85% quality looks fine, even zoomed in. Once a photo is prepared I don't typically come back and edit it again, so the resaving loss is not a big factor. A finished file will typically be no more than a couple of MB and often smaller (drastically so if it has been cropped down to a smaller size). My main target is publishing on the web, where large images are not required, which is why YMMV.

Wulf

[prrs4me]

jdepould-I did mean MB.

Wulf-I use my photos for a variety of reasons. I print calendars and other projects for the family and use them on line. I will start saving them at 80% as it is a smaller file size. And I guess I will save the RAW files just in case. Thanks for your help.

[wulf]

I don't do much printing but, if I did, then I would be inclined to reduce a few files in size and then print them to see if that makes a visible difference. Definitely worth doing before you delete the larger originals.

Wulf

[Darryl]

What are your problems with that large file size? Is it storage space, or processing time- Personally, I like to keep my images as high quality as I can, since I don't always know what I'll be doing with them. If you're running out of drive space, you might consider what your computer needs are going to be in the next couple of years. Maybe it's time for an upgrade. Hard drives are getting huge these days, and processor speeds are up to the task of handling large files, even with lots of photoshop work done on them.

If it's more of an intellectual problem (why have such a large file when I can't see the differences in the images) then you need to do your own test. Take one raw file and make a series of jpgs from it, at decreasing levels of quality. If you find that you can live with one, but not another, there's your answer. Another test is to crop out the same 4x6 section from each, then have them printed as 4x6's. If you see no difference between say, the 100% jpg, and the 80% jpg, you could then base your decision on that. If you're going to shrink an image to print or view it, you might be able to step down even more.

Some images are more tolerant than others in terms of save quality. Without getting deep into the anals of jpg, I'd have to suggest that a test is the only way to find out how low you can go with save quality and either 'get away' with it, or be happy with it.

MHO

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by prrs4me

I have been using Canon's DPP to convert my RAW files to JPEGs.

When I convert my pictures from RAW to JPEG I am getting very large JPEG files.

I use Batch process
Kind of File-Exif-JPEG
Image Quality 10
Output Resolution 350 DPI
embed ICC profile.

My JPEGS are between 8-11 MP per picture. How can I make the files smaller without downgrading quality? What am I doing wrong?
I noticed that when I shoot in just JPEG the DPI is 72x72. Should I change it when I process from RAW? Or should I change the image quality?

HELP!

just a point regards resolution. Your camera will output as a 72ppi image but that actually means nothing. When you convert to 350ppi that also means nothing. Resolution only comes into play when you want to print your image. What matters is the number of pixels in your image.

300ppi is generally seen as the maximum a human eye can resolve so outputting your jpg images at 300ppi is probably a better bet than 350ppi although this should not affect file size (so long as the number of pixels remains the same).