For Canon DPP software users (RAW)

BeemerChef · September 18, 2008

OK... so now I learned how to "manage and shoot" in RAW. Very cool... but I noticed that ONE picture is 15MB!... that is converted to JPG (into SmugMug).
How do you handle that! as before my JPG's where maybe up to 4MB...

Part II... is it my imagination or is shooting RAW are much sharper/clearer images?

Thanks... and be well.

Ara & Spirit

PS: that is MB not MP as initially written... my error. JPG's originally are around 5MB... RAW conversion into JPG are around 15MB...

schmoo · September 19, 2008

Hi Ara, sorry I wasn't really able to help you tonight with your questions. Now I'm dying to know the answer to this as well.

To speed this up I'm moving this to Finishing School where all the tech-heads love to chat.

Andy · September 19, 2008

Ara, it's quite possible, 15mb. When you save it, use "save as" and save at JPG 10. Not 12.

BeemerChef · September 19, 2008

schmoo wrote:

Hi Ara, sorry I wasn't really able to help you tonight with your questions. Now I'm dying to know the answer to this as well.

To speed this up I'm moving this to Finishing School where all the tech-heads love to chat.

That's OK... I know many use RAW as I am now, but the final file converted to JPG is so huge!

Thanks... and just in case... "have a great time in Moab...", might take the ride with Spirit in December for the Birthday Bash!!!

Be well... Ara & Spirit

BeemerChef · September 19, 2008

Andy wrote:

Ara, it's quite possible, 15mb. When you save it, use "save as" and save at JPG 10. Not 12.

I use DPP, Canon software, it does not give me a choice, just JPG... There is a resize window but then I would have to store the originals, which I do but...

Andy · September 19, 2008

BeemerChef wrote:

I use DPP, Canon software, it does not give me a choice, just JPG... There is a resize window but then I would have to store the originals, which I do but...

OK Wait for a DPP user, I don't use that tool. Sorry!

pathfinder · September 20, 2008

I'm with Andy, most of my jpgs from CS3 or LR2, are between 1 - 5 Megabytes in size and will scale to large images very nicely - these are files from a 40D or a 5D.

DPP MUST have some means of choosing how the file is saved in terms of jpg compression, but I don't use DPP, so I can't really answer the question either.

David_S85 · September 20, 2008

DPP has a .JPG Image quality setting of 1 through 10. 10 is the best & produces the largest file size. Are you selecting File > Convert and save or Save as ?

DavidTO · September 20, 2008

When you choose Convert and Save, lower the image quality to about 80% of the max.

BeemerChef · September 20, 2008

DavidTO wrote:

When you choose Convert and Save, lower the image quality to about 80% of the max.

Oh!... I always thought "quality" meant "quality"...:D So if it means the size that will work... I will try it right now. I will try different %'s and see what I get. I already store my originals on external drives and Discs... so I guess that will be OK to downsize... not that what I shoot is ever printed!!!:cry

Be well... Ara & Spirit

BeemerChef · September 20, 2008

DavidTO wrote:

When you choose Convert and Save, lower the image quality to about 80% of the max.

Amazing that a 10 can be 15 +/-MB and down to 8 it drops it to about +/-5MB... good deal! Thank you... another obstacle has been surmounted...
Now if I could only find my good old faitful Kodak Instamatic...

Be well.... Ara & Spirit

BradfordBenn · September 20, 2008

BeemerChef wrote:

... not that what I shoot is ever printed!!!:cry

You never know... I had a picture of mine end up in the AeroStich catalog, another couple going out with press releases for work. It is one of the reasons I keep my originals also. And having seen your stuff, I know that yours could just as easily be printed.

kdog · September 20, 2008

BeemerChef wrote:

Amazing that a 10 can be 15 +/-MB and down to 8 it drops it to about +/-5MB...

Yeah, level 10 most likely disables compression completely which is why there's such a huge jump.

BTW, CS3 goes up to level 12 which is better.

(That's a reference to a funny line in the classic movie Spinal Tap where a musician says, "This amplifier goes to 11, which is better!")

Cheers,
-joel

BeemerChef · September 20, 2008

Everyone is up so early!!!
Thanks Bradford and Joel...
It is working fine at 8... and will keep originals myself. I still feel however that it defeats SmugMug's usage.
I had this problem a couple years earlier when out of ignorance I shot for months using 5 or less Megapixels... and then I wanted to blow up a couple of those pictures. Bad surprise... limited size...
Well, we are over that hurdle and I am also understanding RAW much better, mainly that it is not "magic"!!! Just continue shooting as I was but with better control on post processing...
Thank you all...
Be well...

Ara & Spirit... (who really has nothing to do with all this!!!

)

OffTopic · September 21, 2008

BeemerChief,

Just a little info on file sizes so you can understand what is happening. It has nothing to do with DPP.

Looks like you're shooting with a 10MP camera that gives you an image with dimensions of 3,888 x 2592. When you are shooting RAW:

3,888 x 2,592 x 3 (for your R,G,B channels) = 30,233,088 = 30MB* file at 16 bits (if you were to save as 16-bit TIFF or .psd), and/or a 15MB file at 8 bits (when you convert to JPEG). So the file sizes you noted are exactly what you should be getting from your camera, no matter what program you use to convert.

You can compress to a smaller size, just understand that compression throws away data, and the more you compress the more data you throw away. So while you can obtain a 5MB JPEG file from a 10MP camera, you are getting rid of a lot of data to do so (two-thirds?)

It all depends on your needs. The quality setting does affect quality. Many people feel that saving at a slightly lower JPG quality setting is perfectly acceptable for their needs and it does save hard drive room. Others are not willing to sacrifice any pixels and buy terabytes of hard drive storage.

Something I think about a lot as I drool over 21MP cameras. If you're not worried about commercial usage, just prints, others have noted that you will be fine with some compression.

*The slight difference is due to rounding - the old 1000 vs 1024

**Edited to correct for a fat-finger typo
***Edited again to correct typo

BeemerChef · September 21, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

BeemerChief,

Just a little info on file sizes so you can understand what is happening. It has nothing to do with DPP.

Looks like you're shooting with a 10MP camera that gives you an image with dimensions of 3,888 x 2592. When you are shooting RAW:

3,888 x 2,592 x 3 (for your R,G,B channels) = 30,233,088 = 30MB* file at 16 bits (if you were to save as 16-bit TIFF or .psd), and/or a 15MB file at 8 bits (when you convert to JPEG). So the file sizes you noted are exactly what you should be getting from your camera, no matter what program you use to convert.

You can compress to a smaller size, just understand that compression throws away data, and the more you compress the more data you throw away. So while you can obtain a 5MB JPEG file from a 10MP camera, you are getting rid of a lot of data to do so (two-thirds?)

It all depends on your needs. The quality setting does affect quality. Many people feel that saving at a slightly lower JPG quality setting is perfectly acceptable for their needs and it does save hard drive room. Others are not willing to sacrifice any pixels and buy terabytes of hard drive storage. Something I think about a lot as I drool over 21MP cameras. If you're not worried about commercial usage, just prints, others have noted that you will be fine with some compression.

*The slight difference is due to rounding - the old 1000 vs 1064

**Edited to correct for a fat-finger typo

First I really want to thank you for your time. This has been a learning curve for me while on the road and your words add another step up and up.

OK... the camera is a 12.8MP. I do now understand that if I converted the RAW image to JPG at the quality "10" the end result would be as good as it is going to get, and the JPG file is now about 15~17 +/- MB... huge
Posting photos on my Blog... they of course do not need to be so huge and I can lower the quality to "6" which will make the JPG file 4~5 +/-MB.
But... I would like to keep the originals. Maybe the few that I might think some day might be blown up... (has not happened yet).
I don't know if SmugMug will store that high number such as 15 MB... maybe I will ask a Super Hero about it...
I am really understanding the concept now...
Am I on the right path?
Thanks... and be well... Ara & Spirit

OffTopic · September 21, 2008

Do you have any image editing software available to you while you're on the road? DPP is just a RAW converter... but my personal recommendation, if you want images just for posting on your blog that will be separate from any you might print, I would convert in DPP and then transfer to my editing software. My DPP shows Tools > Transfer to Photoshop. If you don't have Photoshop you may have to save the jpeg, then open it from your editing software. I'm a little rusty with DPP because I stopped using it a while ago.

Once in my editing software, I would resize the file, say 600 pixels on the longest side, and then save at the highest jpeg quality ("save as" with a new name if you don't want to overwrite the high-res jpg). That will give you a file that is well under 1MB. Probably only a couple hundred k. And more than adequate for viewing on the web and posting on a blog.

That way you'd have your originals (as you stated), and your second set for posting on your blog wouldn't take up much room at all.

As for maximum file size you can upload to SmugMug it is 12MB for standard and power users, 24MB for pro users.

BeemerChef · September 21, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

Do you have any image editing software available to you while you're on the road? DPP is just a RAW converter... but my personal recommendation, if you want images just for posting on your blog that will be separate from any you might print, I would convert in DPP and then transfer to my editing software. My DPP shows Tools > Transfer to Photoshop. If you don't have Photoshop you may have to save the jpeg, then open it from your editing software. I'm a little rusty with DPP because I stopped using it a while ago.

Once in my editing software, I would resize the file, say 600 pixels on the longest side, and then save at the highest jpeg quality ("save as" with a new name if you don't want to overwrite the high-res jpg). That will give you a file that is well under 1MB. Probably only a couple hundred k. And more than adequate for viewing on the web and posting on a blog.

That way you'd have your originals (as you stated), and your second set for posting on your blog wouldn't take up much room at all.

As for maximum file size you can upload to SmugMug it is 12MB for standard and power users, 24MB for pro users.

OK... I have PRO user but for the sake of time and upload from my Dish I will store the BIG ones on a couple external drives that I have and also burn them on Discs as I do for everything.

I do not have Photoshop, but I use GIMP 2.4 which also has a RAW plug in... so that is a good solution, very good.

Well, this truly clears it all up for me!!!

Love you galleries by the way and so strange that we have been ourselves on the road for 2 years now and have not gone where you have!!! We have done a lot of Utah... and have not even sctrached the surface... Now we will be in Big Bend (Texas) for 6 months or so or around...

No fences and no gates... much room to camp on the physical location of "The Oasis of my Soul"... you two are more than welcome...

Thank you again for all the help, they are the answers I was seeking. If I can ever in turn help with cooking questions... feel free!

Be well... Ara & Spirit

BeemerChef · September 26, 2008

So now I have had another thought... (It happens...).
While trying to save time uploading converted photos to SmugMug in sizes of about 2 to 3 MB +/- and saving the RAW on my external drive and discs... this will hinder the sizes of photos available as "merchandise"!!!
Bummer... might just have to store the big ones on SmugMug also... or maybe just a few selected ones, the ones I might feel readers of my Blog might purchase... which really has only happened once!!!:D

Just venting...

Be well... Ara & Spirit

OffTopic · September 26, 2008

OK, easy fix for that. No venting required!

I didn't realize that the blog photos were also for sale, but you can upload the small compressed files ( check this page to make sure you have the minimum file size for the products to show in the shopping cart - the minimums are very small). Then when someone orders a print/product, SmugMug notifies you and you can replace the small compressed file with the original. You can set print delay up to 5 days I believe, so it shouldn't be a problem while you're on the road.

Thank you for your kind words on my galleries. That's what I love about the west, there is so much open and untouched land here it seems you can travel forever without scratching the surface, there's always more to explore. It's great to meet another with nomadic blood (not everyone understands), but you're actually living the dream while I'm still squeezing it in on the weekends and the occasional extended journey. Be safe, and give a scratch under the chin to Spirit.

Lori

mercphoto · September 26, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

*The slight difference is due to rounding - the old 1000 vs 1064

That's 1024, not 1064. Sorry, I'm a geek and have powers-of-two memorized to 2^16.

OffTopic · September 26, 2008

mercphoto wrote:

That's 1024, not 1064. Sorry, I'm a geek and have powers-of-two memorized to 2^16.

Thank you for catching that mercphoto. I need to keep reminding myself not to post anything to do with numbers early in the morning before I'd had sufficient coffee!

OffTopic · September 26, 2008

I corrected the mistake in my original post so there is no confusion.

BeemerChef · September 27, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

OK, easy fix for that. No venting required!

I didn't realize that the blog photos were also for sale, but you can upload the small compressed files ( check this page to make sure you have the minimum file size for the products to show in the shopping cart - the minimums are very small). Then when someone orders a print/product, SmugMug notifies you and you can replace the small compressed file with the original. You can set print delay up to 5 days I believe, so it shouldn't be a problem while you're on the road.

Thank you for your kind words on my galleries. That's what I love about the west, there is so much open and untouched land here it seems you can travel forever without scratching the surface, there's always more to explore. It's great to meet another with nomadic blood (not everyone understands), but you're actually living the dream while I'm still squeezing it in on the weekends and the occasional extended journey. Be safe, and give a scratch under the chin to Spirit.

Lori

Thanks Lori...

Of course the "above" is a solution but the scenario can only play correctly "if I write" on the Blog that any size photo is doable, available...
The reason is, and generally the attention span is only a few seconds and people do not read (including myself at time!), if someone picks a big photo size the SmugMug page will show as not available because the MB is to low. Will a reader then in turn get in touch with me?... That is to be seen.
I think what I might end up doing is pick the ones that I feel would be "sellable" and have those uploaded in their original sizes... and then again readers have surprised me by some choices that I myself did not think much of...
I might have DSL soon in this middle of the Desert which we will call home base for a few months, amazingly they can pull a line... The uploads might be much faster and will solve this dilemna. While traveling WI FI is also pretty fast...

Will see how it all goes as the stars line up...:D

Be well... Ara & Spirit

Tee Why · September 27, 2008

I briefly read through the posts and just wanted to comment on a few things.

As for the JPEG and RAW shooting. I shoot Canon's and use DPP as my default converter. I also use Lightroom and Adebe Camera RAW from time to time, but prefer Canon's DPP b/c to me it seems to give better color, tones, details.

Compared to JPEG images out of the camera, I would agree that the processed RAW image in DPP tends to look better in most ways, so I'd say you are not imagining those differences shooting RAW now.

In DPP under "Batch Process" button on the top right, you can select the "quality" from 1-10 to control the size of the JPEG image. DPP at max. quality size tends to be bigger than from Photoshop or Lightroom. If you have a 12MP sensor, an image with lots of detail having about 15MB does not suprise me. I've found that with a 30D that has 8MP, most DPP JPEG converted images have about 5-7MB, while the same in LR may have about 4-5MB at maximum quality settings. Initially, I didn't like this but I like it now as I want more information/less compression of my files for better image quality, especially if I'm going to post process the converted image in photoshop.

If you are uploading to print and have a pro account. I would consider uploading the biggest files you can make for the best quality prints, especially if you are selling the images. Getting a DSL line will make it a lot faster but you can upload at night and go to sleep and it should be done in the morning if you don't like sitting and waiting for the things to upload. If you upload the highest quality JPEG images and have Pro account. I think you can order a DVD of the images from smugmug if you lose the JPGES or don't save them, freeing up some storage space. As the owner you can also download the originals as well.

Lastly, for your blogs and such, you can copy a link to the small size version of the shot so on the blog the image is small. I would also limit the size of the viewable image to about medium or large to prevent theft (Pro accounts have a right button diabling feature, but if someone wants your viewable online image badly, they can take it).

Good luck.

BeemerChef · September 28, 2008

Thanks for your info Tee Why... very nice and very helpful. And yes, I feel also that is the way I should do it by having the large size photos on SmugMug...

I will find out in a few days about getting DSL in the Desert... the phone Co has a grant to pull line!!! Amazing what they can do... As far as letting them do their thing all night is impossible!!! I am on solar power... no a big system but very adequate for normal usage... Somehow now that I have all the "info" I will figure it out...

Be well... Ara & Spirit

canon400d · September 28, 2008

OffTopic wrote:

BeemerChief,

Just a little info on file sizes so you can understand what is happening. It has nothing to do with DPP.

Looks like you're shooting with a 10MP camera that gives you an image with dimensions of 3,888 x 2592. When you are shooting RAW:

3,888 x 2,592 x 3 (for your R,G,B channels) = 30,233,088 = 30MB* file at 16 bits (if you were to save as 16-bit TIFF or .psd), and/or a 15MB file at 8 bits (when you convert to JPEG). So the file sizes you noted are exactly what you should be getting from your camera, no matter what program you use to convert.

You can compress to a smaller size, just understand that compression throws away data, and the more you compress the more data you throw away. So while you can obtain a 5MB JPEG file from a 10MP camera, you are getting rid of a lot of data to do so (two-thirds?)

It all depends on your needs. The quality setting does affect quality. Many people feel that saving at a slightly lower JPG quality setting is perfectly acceptable for their needs and it does save hard drive room. Others are not willing to sacrifice any pixels and buy terabytes of hard drive storage. Something I think about a lot as I drool over 21MP cameras. If you're not worried about commercial usage, just prints, others have noted that you will be fine with some compression.

*The slight difference is due to rounding - the old 1000 vs 1024

**Edited to correct for a fat-finger typo
***Edited again to correct typo[/quote

Yes I agree with everything you have said but will the average photographer understand what has been said and I always think it is good if possible to explain a detail so everyone can understand. I certainly appreciate what you have said.
Regards
Bob

For Canon DPP software users (RAW)

Comments