Finally hit the upload limit.

Jeffro

I finally hit the max upload size limit of 24mb. I didn't even know there was a size limit, since I was shooting with a 20D. But now that I'm shooting with the 7D I've found the limit. It's too bad that I now have a camera that allows bigger file sizes, but I am unable to print from that file size. Sure makes me wonder why anyone on here wants a camera with more mb's. :dunno

I guess I'll have to add another step to my processing, re sizing for Smugmug upload.

Dan7312

What jpg quality level are you using? If your are using 10 try reducing it to 8 or 9... that will make the file smaller but maintain the resolution and still be plenty good for prints.

Jeffro wrote: »

I finally hit the max upload size limit of 24mb. I didn't even know there was a size limit, since I was shooting with a 20D. But now that I'm shooting with the 7D I've found the limit. It's too bad that I now have a camera that allows bigger file sizes, but I am unable to print from that file size. Sure makes me wonder why anyone on here wants a camera with more mb's.

I guess I'll have to add another step to my processing, re sizing for Smugmug upload.

Dan7312

Check out this http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=173464&highlight=friedl+jpeg

Jeffro wrote: »

I finally hit the max upload size limit of 24mb. I didn't even know there was a size limit, since I was shooting with a 20D. But now that I'm shooting with the 7D I've found the limit. It's too bad that I now have a camera that allows bigger file sizes, but I am unable to print from that file size. Sure makes me wonder why anyone on here wants a camera with more mb's.

I guess I'll have to add another step to my processing, re sizing for Smugmug upload.

DavidTO

Moved to SmugMug support.

Jeffro

Dan7312 wrote: »

What jpg quality level are you using? If your are using 10 try reducing it to 8 or 9... that will make the file smaller but maintain the resolution and still be plenty good for prints.

Not sure, I'll check.

Dan7312 wrote: »

Check out this http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=173464&highlight=friedl+jpeg

I'll give that a look later.

DavidTO wrote: »

Moved to SmugMug support.

hoob

Yeah, I've hit the limit a few times, on some large panoramic stiches.. Grrr...

Andy

Jeffro wrote: »

Not sure, I'll check.



I'll give that a look later.

I'm guessing you are saving in Photoshop 12 as JPG or LR 10 in Lightroom -- after post processing your images. If you'll just use JPG 10 in PS or LR9 or 8 in LR, you'll be fine - and your images will still print perfectly - we guarantee it!

Jeffro

Andy wrote: »

I'm guessing you are saving in Photoshop 12 as JPG or LR 10 in Lightroom -- after post processing your images. If you'll just use JPG 10 in PS or LR9 or 8 in LR, you'll be fine - and your images will still print perfectly - we guarantee it!

I use DPP that came with the 7D...no fancy photoshop or lightroom for me...not yet anyway. I was using 10, I did one at 9 and reduced the file size by 3mbs, so I guess I'll be doing that from here on out.

Thanks for the tips.

Sam

Jeffro wrote: »

I use DPP that came with the 7D...no fancy photoshop or lightroom for me...not yet anyway. I was using 10, I did one at 9 and reduced the file size by 3mbs, so I guess I'll be doing that from here on out.

Thanks for the tips.

I don't know...something seems out of whack. While the RAW files can be pretty large the jpg files from my 7D seem to be 8MB at the largest? And any difference in print quality between saving at 12 / 10 or saving at 10 / 8 will not be visible.

Sam

Andy

Sam wrote: »

I don't know...something seems out of whack. While the RAW files can be pretty large the jpg files from my 7D seem to be 8MB at the largest? And any difference in print quality between saving at 12 / 10 or saving at 10 / 8 will not be visible.

Sam

Try doing a high-ish iso file in Canon DPP, I guess. I just exported an iso 3200 shot from my Africa trip, plenty of LR stuff done to it - noise, sharpening, exposure, etc etc. Saved at LR10 it was only 14megabytes. I really wonder exactly what sorts of files from a 7D are going over 24mb after processing....

Dan7312

It's not common, but I've have found that sometimes a raw from my 7D ends up being a >24MB jpeg. It usually an image that has a lot of detail in it when this happens and only if you use the max for jpeg quality.

Sam wrote: »

I don't know...something seems out of whack. While the RAW files can be pretty large the jpg files from my 7D seem to be 8MB at the largest? And any difference in print quality between saving at 12 / 10 or saving at 10 / 8 will not be visible.

Sam

SamirD

Dan7312 wrote: »

It's not common, but I've have found that sometimes a raw from my 7D ends up being a >24MB jpeg. It usually an image that has a lot of detail in it when this happens and only if you use the max for jpeg quality.

Good to know. If I ever rent a 7D rig, I'll have to look out for this as this is usually how I shoot due to my volume.

Allen

Dan7312 wrote: »

It's not common, but I've have found that sometimes a raw from my 7D ends up being a >24MB jpeg. It usually an image that has a lot of detail in it when this happens and only if you use the max for jpeg quality.

All of my raws from the 7D are between 25-28meg. This is at any ISO. I convert with DPP to tif and if
not cropped the tif file is about 105meg. After processing and saving in PSP at highest Quality the
resulting jpg usually about 14-15meg.

btw, very fine sharping increases the file size greatly which gives me the 14-15meg.
This only only referring to full frame images with no cropping.

Jeffro

I've only had 4 or 5 files end up bigger than 24mb...I believe they were all ISO 100. I'll have play around with DPP and see what happens when I process a file with different dpi and quality settings.

Allen

Jeffro wrote: »

I've only had 4 or 5 files end up bigger than 24mb...I believe they were all ISO 100. I'll have play around with DPP and see what happens when I process a file with different dpi and quality settings.

I usually have to use higher ISO's to get the speed. The resulting noise adds a lot of detail, hence larger file sizes.

davemj98

My Sony A900's routinely produce out of camera jpg's over the load limit, forcing me to crop even though I don't want to. I sure wish this limit would be adjusted.
Dave

Andy

davemj98 wrote: »

My Sony A900's routinely produce out of camera jpg's over the load limit, forcing me to crop even though I don't want to. I sure wish this limit would be adjusted.
Dave

Shouldn't have to crop, why not use JPG 10, or 9 in PS, or LR 9 or 8?

davemj98

Limit.
I have been forced to crop ever since I went PRO here. The system routinely refuses my jpegs when they go over the 24 limit. I am forced to doing post work and spending more time on that than I did on shooting. It does not matter what an owner of a 24 MP camera wants, (an auto reducer might be nice) if the jpeg is too big, it is refused. I even bought a third party program to fix this but that failed also.

Andy

davemj98 wrote: »

I have been forced to crop ever since I went PRO here. The system routinely refuses my jpegs when they go over the 24 limit. I am forced to doing post work and spending more time on that than I did on shooting. It does not matter what an owner of a 24 MP camera wants, (an auto reducer might be nice) if the jpeg is too big, it is refused. I even bought a third party program to fix this but that failed also.

Dave, what is your workflow? What software are you using, and at what level are you saving your JPGs?

Andy

davemj98 wrote: »

I have been forced to crop ever since I went PRO here. The system routinely refuses my jpegs when they go over the 24 limit. I am forced to doing post work and spending more time on that than I did on shooting. It does not matter what an owner of a 24 MP camera wants, (an auto reducer might be nice) if the jpeg is too big, it is refused. I even bought a third party program to fix this but that failed also.

Dave, I just took a 22mb Sony A900 DNG file, processed it in Photoshop (sharpening), and then saved it at JPG 12 in PS - it came out at 34mb. I used JPG 11 in Photoshop, and it was 21Mb - well under our 24Mb file size limit. There is absolutely no difference in the print quality you'd get from either of these files - or the visual quality on-screen. I still contend that you do not need to crop, you just need to compress slightly. There's plenty of info out there on the net showing that even using down to JPG 10, 9, 8 will be no difference in the files you view or print. http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

I'd love to help you more, so you can upload your files!

davemj98

Andy wrote: »

Dave, what is your workflow? What software are you using, and at what level are you saving your JPGs?

I an using the best jpeg that my camera can give me, and we have discussed this previously. My workflow is I take a picture and post it here. However you have forced me to crop, or be refused.
Dave

Andy

davemj98 wrote: »

I an using the best jpeg that my camera can give me, and we have discussed this previously. My workflow is I take a picture and post it here. However you have forced me to crop, or be refused.
Dave

Hi Dave, I'm really trying to help you.

I don't own that camera but I imagine there are various jpg settings that the camera can produce - perhaps you can use the 2nd from the top setting? This way you won't have to crop.

davemj98

I am not trying to be difficult; I never agreed to post processing as a part of this site.

I am very unhappy that your require me to edit my images, but it is what it is.

Andy

davemj98 wrote: »

I am not trying to be difficult; I never agreed to post processing as a part of this site.

I am very unhappy that your require me to edit my images, but it is what it is.

You're not being difficult at all I'm trying to offer a way that you won't have to edit - try the 2nd from the top JPG setting in-camera - see what size files that produces for JPGs. But since you *are* editing, then why not just save the files at JPG 11 in PS or LR9 in lightroom? Two ways to avoid cropping given - and thanks for bringing this up again, as cameras get bigger we'll keep looking at the file size limitation here.

Andy

Andy wrote: »

You're not being difficult at all I'm trying to offer a way that you won't have to edit - try the 2nd from the top JPG setting in-camera - see what size files that produces for JPGs. But since you *are* editing, then why not just save the files at JPG 11 in PS or LR9 in lightroom? Two ways to avoid cropping given - and thanks for bringing this up again, as cameras get bigger we'll keep looking at the file size limitation here.

Dave, try the "Fine" setting for JPGs, I'd love to see the file size difference with in-camera processing on the JPGs

davemj98

Thanks for your response, but I did not spend all that money to reduce my images.

Andy

davemj98 wrote: »

Thanks for your response, but I did not spend all that money to reduce my images.

Dave, you're not hearing me
Shoot DNGs + JPGs in the fine mode. You'll ALWAYS have the DNGs to produce any file you want in the future. And I would love you to show me visually and / or in print a difference between an image at fine vs. extra fine. In fact, I'll pay for the test. Take the same scene (something you like!) at both fine and extra fine. Send me the images and I'll produce prints for you to compare

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Dave, you're not hearing me
Shoot DNGs + JPGs in the fine mode. You'll ALWAYS have the DNGs to produce any file you want in the future. And I would love you to show me visually and / or in print a difference between an image at fine vs. extra fine. In fact, I'll pay for the test. Take the same scene (something you like!) at both fine and extra fine. Send me the images and I'll produce prints for you to compare

This is an excellent test Dave, and Andy's even willing to foot the bill for it. I'd be curious as to the results too.

Jeffro

davemj98 wrote: »

I am not trying to be difficult; I never agreed to post processing as a part of this site.

I am very unhappy that your require me to edit my images, but it is what it is.

Actually you did agree to edit your images, that is if you read the file upload size limits, which are clearly stated for each level of Smugmug. It was never an issue with my 6mp or 8mp cameras though.

Since running into the problem with the 7D file sizes being over 24mb's I posted the issue here, and as figured, was given a quick and easy solution. I see no difference in my jpegs saved at 10 and 9 and the file size reduces enough to get the photo uploaded.

You've been given a solution, and an offer to prove the solution will not degrade your final image quality, personally I'd take Andy up on the offer.

I'm sure someday Smugmug is going to have to offer bigger file upload sizes as cameras are getting more and more mb's.

Andy

Jeffro wrote: »

I'm sure someday Smugmug is going to have to offer bigger file upload sizes as cameras are getting more and more mb's.

I suspect we will at some point. And with the Sony producing in-camera JPGs at such ginormous sizes, I'll bring this up again internally.