February 27, 2008 at 12:52 pm #1254
Ok, I don’t get it. The camera is set at 6mp and max quality jpeg. Why are the file sizes coming out under 700 kb?
Learning digital doesn’t seem as intuitive to me.February 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm #15408SilverStagParticipant
because the solid black background and the simplicity of the image compresses very efficiently in the jpeg conversion process. You only have a very few colors in that pic and a large monochrome background devoid of any detail. That background could (theoretically) be described in about 5 bytes.
The more detail and colors in an image, the more transitions there will be, which will drive up the file size. Try looking at several images, some complex and busy, and the compare with a an out-of-focus photo of a monochromatic surface, which will produce about the smallest jpeg file possible for a given frame size.February 27, 2008 at 2:37 pm #15409
Thank you. I suspected something of that nature might be the reason, but it was really only at the level of a notion.February 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm #15410
Oh and I guess the next question is, is there a way to make a simple image and keep it at a large file size?
I’m thinking specifically of uploading it and receiving a response that nothing can be done with it because the file size is too small.February 27, 2008 at 4:45 pm #15411Mr.BobDobalitaParticipant
you can convert it to a .tif and it will grow in size about 8 factor.. so in the neighborhood of 5.5 mb.February 28, 2008 at 12:40 am #15412AnalogyParticipant
This is the downside of people who measure image quality in file size with no other qualifier.February 28, 2008 at 1:32 am #15413
This is not about measuring the image, just learning. It was spurred by posting the image to Red Bubble and receiving a response that it was too small to be made into any saleable products because the image is too small. Made me wonder why and whether it was alterable. I really don’t care. I tried something new and am pleased with the result, but I didn’t understand why some images are small file sizes, and some are large and what a photographer can do to affect it all.
Film was easier that way.February 28, 2008 at 8:57 am #15414XenPixParticipant
Usually the issue with printing is not the file size, but a combination of pixels per inch and actual physical image size. Some digital printing services want at least 150ppi, but most cameras come in with jpgs at 72ppi.
You can up the “quality” of the image (meaning more pixels) by adjusting it through your image modifying software of choice. This will make the physical size smaller, but give the necessary ppi for printing on some sites.February 28, 2008 at 12:27 pm #15415
Thank you all. I guess I was most concerned that there was something I missing in the camera. You have allayed my concerns and pointed me to where to go learn more.
Nice to have a world full of good photographers to ask questions of.February 28, 2008 at 4:15 pm #154163HornParticipant
When I shoot RAW, the initial jpeg conversions (no cropping, quality at 100%) are usually 2-3 Mb each. The RAWs come out right around the upper 5/ lower 6Mb range.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.