5-9mb JPG exports from a 22 megapixel original photo seems very reasonable to me, and indication that nothing is wrong. Remember, JPG files are 8bits and are ALWAYS compressed.
What are the settings in Lightroom? Particularly the settings in Image Sizing and the quality slider.
Thanks for you reply dj.
I guess it was just the difference in file size (between LR and AP) I was questioning. I've just run a test on the same RAW image exported out of LR and AP. Quality was set to maximum on both and I output each file at 45cm (wide edge) a6 300dpi. LR came in at 13.9mb (more than I'd seen before, hence why I mentioned the 5-9mb file size) and the AP file was 23.6mb. They obviously both open to the same size in PS (around 53mb).
So my question is, is LR doing a better job of the compression and not losing any quality over the AP one? The AP version has quite a few more mb's of information so assumed that the LR would be inferior in terms of quality (in a way that you'd expect when you move the quality slider on the export panel).
My guess is that you have different settings somehow. Lightroom exporting JPGs always gives you what you requested, I have never seen a case where it didn't; and as far as I know Lightroom uses the same algorithm as Photoshop. If they both open to the same size in Photoshop, it seems to me that the two JPGs are the same.
Exactly where are you looking when you say the Photoshop file was 23.6mb? Please be extremely specific, or show us a screen capture.
So my question is, is LR doing a better job of the compression and not losing any quality over the AP one?
You will find the answer to this question by opening both jpgs in Photoshop, and comparing them at 100% view.
I just exported each file into a folder. The AP exported file is 23.6 and the LR one is 13.9. I don't think I said the Photoshop file is 23.6, I'm just saying that each file is a different size. When you open in PS both files are exactly the same size as you would expect 45x30cm, 300 dpi and 53.9mb.
The only difference I can see with AP is that the quality slider goes to 12 but I'd assumed this was an arbitrary figure and 12 is the maximum whereas LR is 100% and both offer the same amount of compression. Do you think it's possible that Aperture offered a jpeg export option with less compression because that's what I appear to be seeing.
I can live with the smaller compressed size I was just trying to understand why it was smaller and if I was doing something wrong.
You really haven't answered my question. You have to tell me exactly (what software, where in the software) where you are looking when you see this size difference.
Yes, Photoshop 12 is the same as Lightroom 100 (not 100%, it is not a percent).
Yes I did that and they certainly look similar but it's quite difficult to tell if there are any differences even side by side. I would assume it would be also be quite difficult to spot the difference between a jpeg exported at 100% and one at 90% but there would still be a difference in mb's. If the difference in mb's between the AP and LR versions were similar I wouldn't have raised the question but almost 10mb's seemed considerable.
If anyone had both packages and could run the same test I would be interested to hear their thoughts.
I tried to answer your question dj!
I'm not comparing Photoshop with Lightroom I'm comparing Apple Aperture with Lightroom. I've attached the export dialogue from Aperture to show you how I currently set my export (plus the LR one)
I've also attached the Finder view showing each file, file 1A was exported from Aperture and is 22.5mb (I've tried with a different image, hence the change from my original trial image) and the Lightroom version 1B is 14.3mb. Both exported at full quality.
Referring to Lightroom 100, I had assumed it was percentage as the slider allows a quality from 0 to 100 and not more that 100. It's a bit like a percentage in my book but I stand corrected!
I see you included metadata in Aperture.
Did you do that in Lightroom? If not, it could account for (some of the) difference in file size.
I did double check that Per. When I exported from AP without metadata the file size was the same. It's only a tiny amount of text data.
I'm not a Mac user, and have never used Aperture, but I've been perfectly happy with my exports from LR at 100 quality.
So maybe LR is using better technology than Aperture - I don't know ...
But if you really want to test this, use an image with diagonal lines in it, like power lines against a blue sky.
If there is any difference in quality, this is where it would show.
Can you upload three copies of the same image (original raw/jpg from camera before importing anywhere, Aperture export, LR export), an image that you can share publically, to www.dropbox.com, post a public share link, here, and let us take a look to see what might be different between the two images that makes the Aperture one so much larger? If you don't have an image to share, then take a new photo of something generic.
Aperture is doing something strange with the JPG file.
The 16-bit raw file is 26mb. The JPG being 8-bit should be at most 13mb with zero compression.
Thanks ManiacJoe. Yeah I thought as much! Could it be that they just used a lower compression?
No real issue, just trying to work my way round LR and this was one thing that flagged up.