I shoot weddings. I only shoot in RAW. I use CS2 and Bridge to process my RAW files and then export the finals to JPG.
I heard the buzz about Lightroom and downloaded the trial to give it a whirl. I took a set of RAW files that were already tweaked, copied them to another folder (with the xmp side car files), brought them into Lightroom and exported them to JPG. The JPG's created by Lightroom were MUCH smaller. I was very surpised by this.
I shoot with a 20D and the JPGs generated from Bridge ending up being between 4 to 6mg per image. For the same set of RAW images, the JPGs generated from Lightromm avereaged between 1.5 and 3.5 mg. Both Lightroom and Bridge were set to export the JPGs at quality 12, SRGB.
Can anyone tell me why this would be? Has anybody else found this to be the case? I can't help but think that some data is being discarded from Lightroom.
Full Version: JPG's from Lightroom vs Bridge... file size difference.
Lightroom's jpg quality are 0-100%, not 1-12 as in PS/ACR. I just tested a 30D file and the file sizes between PS12 and LR100 were very similar (3,547Kb vs 3,534Kb)
I also tested moderate default LR sharpening and NR effects on the file size, and they were negligable with my file (ISO 100 - very clean - small DOF)
Are you sure you weren't using Jpg Quality 90 in LR? That's my usual output amount, even If I'll be doing some PP as I haven't been able to tell the difference between that and Q100, but the file sizes are significantly smaller. My offline archives are as DNG, at least until Adobe puts back the awesome Photo Binder they took out (hurry up, "1.1").
Just did a test and here are the different Lightroom export file sizes in Kb... in case anybody cares
I also tested moderate default LR sharpening and NR effects on the file size, and they were negligable with my file (ISO 100 - very clean - small DOF)
Are you sure you weren't using Jpg Quality 90 in LR? That's my usual output amount, even If I'll be doing some PP as I haven't been able to tell the difference between that and Q100, but the file sizes are significantly smaller. My offline archives are as DNG, at least until Adobe puts back the awesome Photo Binder they took out (hurry up, "1.1").
Just did a test and here are the different Lightroom export file sizes in Kb... in case anybody cares
CODE
CR2 7,464
Jpg_Q90 2,047
Jpg_Q100 3,534
DNG 6,903
TIF8 24,008
TIF16 47,988
TIF8_ZIP 8,772
TIF16_ZIP 37,790
PSD8 24,007
PSD16 47,988
Jpg_Q90 2,047
Jpg_Q100 3,534
DNG 6,903
TIF8 24,008
TIF16 47,988
TIF8_ZIP 8,772
TIF16_ZIP 37,790
PSD8 24,007
PSD16 47,988
QUOTE(Steve Madden @ April 16 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]118935[/snapback]
Lightroom's jpg quality are 0-100%, not 1-12 as in PS/ACR. I just tested a 30D file and the file sizes between PS12 and LR100 were very similar (3,547Kb vs 3,534Kb)
I also tested moderate default LR sharpening and NR effects on the file size, and they were negligable with my file (ISO 100 - very clean - small DOF)
Are you sure you weren't using Jpg Quality 90 in LR? That's my usual output amount, even If I'll be doing some PP as I haven't been able to tell the difference between that and Q100, but the file sizes are significantly smaller. My offline archives are as DNG, at least until Adobe puts back the awesome Photo Binder they took out (hurry up, "1.1").
Just did a test and here are the different Lightroom export file sizes in Kb... in case anybody cares
I also tested moderate default LR sharpening and NR effects on the file size, and they were negligable with my file (ISO 100 - very clean - small DOF)
Are you sure you weren't using Jpg Quality 90 in LR? That's my usual output amount, even If I'll be doing some PP as I haven't been able to tell the difference between that and Q100, but the file sizes are significantly smaller. My offline archives are as DNG, at least until Adobe puts back the awesome Photo Binder they took out (hurry up, "1.1").
Just did a test and here are the different Lightroom export file sizes in Kb... in case anybody cares
CODE
CR2 7,464
Jpg_Q90 2,047
Jpg_Q100 3,534
DNG 6,903
TIF8 24,008
TIF16 47,988
TIF8_ZIP 8,772
TIF16_ZIP 37,790
PSD8 24,007
PSD16 47,988
Jpg_Q90 2,047
Jpg_Q100 3,534
DNG 6,903
TIF8 24,008
TIF16 47,988
TIF8_ZIP 8,772
TIF16_ZIP 37,790
PSD8 24,007
PSD16 47,988
Yeah I mispoke when I said Quality 12. I meant to say Quality 100. Sorry about that. Here are my export settings:
Preset: Burn Full Sized JPEGs
Destination Folder: c:/---
File Settings/Format: JPEG
Quality:100
Colorspace: sRGB
Resolution: 240 pixels per inch
Constrain Maximum Size: unchecked
Still getting a large variance in file size versus Bridge. I dunno...
QUOTE(Lou Gonzalez @ April 16 2007, 11:24 AM) [snapback]118967[/snapback]
Yeah I mispoke when I said Quality 12. I meant to say Quality 100. Sorry about that. Here are my export settings:
Preset: Burn Full Sized JPEGs
Destination Folder: c:/---
File Settings/Format: JPEG
Quality:100
Colorspace: sRGB
Resolution: 240 pixels per inch
Constrain Maximum Size: unchecked
Still getting a large variance in file size versus Bridge. I dunno...
Preset: Burn Full Sized JPEGs
Destination Folder: c:/---
File Settings/Format: JPEG
Quality:100
Colorspace: sRGB
Resolution: 240 pixels per inch
Constrain Maximum Size: unchecked
Still getting a large variance in file size versus Bridge. I dunno...
Perhaps your Bridge is outputting at 300 dpi instead of 240? That makes a big difference in filesize. Lightroom's default is at 240 unless you change it to 300.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.