digital files

[Alan Klein]

Peter: The problem with anything over setting of 92, the jpeg result is bigger in pixels than the original.

[bdkphoto]

I asked this question earlier. Does anyone have an answer?

I've noticed with jpeg, if you pick very high number (so the compressions is minimum), the final file will be larger in bytes than the original tiff.

Is the process eliminating compression? Why is that happening?

This is not correct - A full size tiff file from my camera (using Lightroom) yeilds a file size of 256MB, saved as a full size jpg in LR at 100 yields a file of 19MB. Significantly smaller.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm not understanding what the issues are here. For storage (kinda like a negative) always use a lossless format such as Tiff. For specific one-time uses, such as the web, convert a copy to a compressed format such as jpeg. Each venue (Facebook...) will have pixel dimension limits. Specify your pixel dimensions. Now use the highest compression setting (to save file size) that gives you the quality you want. What matters are the results. Try things and figure out what works best for you. That's much more likely to lead to good results than pushing a limited understanding of theory.

[Alan Klein]

This is not correct - A full size tiff file from my camera (using Lightroom) yeilds a file size of 256MB, saved as a full size jpg in LR at 100 yields a file of 19MB. Significantly smaller.

I was figuring against original jpeg size, not tiff. In any case I checked again and I was wrong. At 100% I'm getting around 14.7mb from an original 16.6mb jpeg, so the save is smaller. Interesting, I get exactly the same size at 93% but only 8.8mb at 92%. So what setting would you normally use?

[Peter De Smidt]

Try both. Compare. If one is better, then use it. If not, use the smaller file. In the time this discussion has gone on, you could've easily found out for yourself.

[SergeyT]

Worth keeping in mind that the space on a hard drive or a flash drive is allocated in units (blocks) of a certain size ( 1K, 4K, etc). It means that even for a file size of 1 byte there will be allocated an entire block (1K or more).
The allocation unit size (or block size) is constant and is determined at the time of formatting. Making files smaller does not necessarily translates into more efficient usage of the drive space.
With the current prices and availability of HDD\Flash storage there is no reason to compromise on image quality , or is there? Do we want to go back to the 3MP digital point and shoot era ?

[Alan Klein]

Try both. Compare. If one is better, then use it. If not, use the smaller file. In the time this discussion has gone on, you could've easily found out for yourself.

I've set it at 92%. Since the difference between 92% and 93% is 8.8mb vs 14.7MB or almost double, I couldn't believe the smaller one is anywhere near as good as the larger one especially since the original is 16.6mb.. However, I can't see the difference even on similar colored areas. Am I missing anything?

[Alan Klein]

I found this article that explains settings for jpeg quality in Photoshop and Lightroom.
https://photographylife.com/jpeg-com...-and-lightroom

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Alan. JPEG after all is designed to look good to the human eye. It isn't designed to be edited over and over again. I always think of JPEG compression as something to do after you're finished with editing and just want to send the file to someone. Or put a photo on this website, etc.

[wclark5179]

When in business, all I used for capture was camera RAW, then process the files with bridge, saving as jpg. Lab I used wanted jpg and sRGB color space. Worked just fine for me.