# Issue with Exporting High Res Files



## BareFeetPhotography

I recently noticed that when I export my files out of Lightroom, that the file size is much smaller than it used to be (1,500-3,500 kb now vs 6-9 mb previously). The quality is set to 100 and I haven't changed any of the LR settings for resizing. I just had a client contact me because she got the low resolution warning when trying to order a print through Shutterfly, but when I look at the properties of the photo, it seems like it should be fine (3605 x 2406, 240 dpi), based on my vague understanding. I shoot with a Nikon D810, and the raw files are around 30,000 kb, I just can't figure out why LR is compressing the file so much! Any help is very much appreciated 

Emily


----------



## tirediron

Do you have the "Limit file size" box checked?


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

I wish it was that simple, but nope :/ This particular file is 36,000 kb in raw, and 3,600 kb exported into jpg.


----------



## tirediron

BareFeetPhotography said:


> I wish it was that simple, but nope :/ This particular file is 36,000 kb in raw, and 3,600 kb exported into jpg.


And they're not cropped in any way?  You don't have the PPI resolution check-box reduced by any chance?  I'm getting 20-30Mb on an uncropped JPG from my D800 at 300PPI.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

I cropped it a tad, just enough to straighten the horizon and center the subject. Is the PPI resolution check-box under Image Sizing on the Export screen? If so, the Resize to Fit box is not checked, and resolution is set to 240 PPI. I'm certain that something changed when I started shooting with my D810 in September, because all of my images that I shot with my D5500 exported as much larger files. Do I need to somehow calibrate my LR to recognize a different camera maybe?


----------



## tirediron

Other than the ensuring it has the necessary algorithm to render the raw files, LR doesn't care a whit about what camera  you have.  Output file size is solely a function of input file size + corrections + cropping + output options.  Somewhere you've adjusted an output setting, but where, I can't think of at the moment...  The PPI to which I referred is the one in the Export dialogue box.


----------



## KmH

The _print resolution value_ (PPI) will not affect the file size. It only affects the print size.
Did the low resolution warning say the image resolution was to low or the print resolution was to low?
From what little info you have provided

The Quality value set, changing the image resolution (pixel dimensions by a crop), and the file type _does/can affect the file size_.
Using a Quality setting of 100 there is about a 4:1 reduction in the file size when going from a Raw file to JPEG.
Lowering the Quality setting increases the file size reduction ratio and the file size.

240 ppi is the _default_ print resolution LR uses.
Apparently you noticed that in the LR Export dialog the print resolution value can be ppi, or ppc, and not dpi, which you used in post #1.
Ppi and dpi are not interchangeable terms for digital image print resolution.

With image and print resolutions of 3605 x 2406 and 240 ppi a print made with those numbers would be 15" x 10".
3605 px / 240 ppi = 15.02 inches
2406 px / 240 ppi = 10.03 inches
The D810 _does not make photos with those pixel dimensions_. So the 3605 x 2406 photo had to have been cropped.
If it was cropped from an FX size file (7360 x 4912) the photo was cropped a lot (smaller than DX), and the file size was similarly reduced.

Assuming the image resolution stays the same (no crop), to _be printed at a different size the print resolution has to be changed_.
At 100 ppi a 3605 x 2406 print will be a 36 x 24 print. Print labs have to set the appropriate print resolution of a digital image file to print it at the size their customer has ordered.

If your client tried to order a print bigger than 24x36 it's possible the _print resolution_ was lower than the print maker's minimum print resolution, which is usually at about 100 ppi.

Which is why giving clients digital image files and letting them get prints made themselves can backfire and make it seem the photographer somehow screwed up.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

Thank you for your reply. I see now that my question was pretty vague; I guess I was hoping it would be a quick fix or as simple as changing a setting that I'm not aware of. That could still be the case, but I'm going to post a few screenshots to give you a better idea of what I'm seeing.

1. These are the Properties for the raw file in question

2. This is how I've always had my Export settings for putting digital images on a disc/USB. When I post images on Facebook, I typically Limit File Size to 2,500 K and put them in a separate folder, then uncheck the box for the next session.

3. This one is to show what little cropping was done before export.

4. The dimensions and dpi value that I gave in my original post were from the Properties of the exported photo, shown in this screen shot. I checked into that after going through Shutterfly's trouble-shooting for the low resolution warning.

I used to do contract work for another photographer who showed me how to export "High vs. Low Resolution" files. What he really meant by that (image vs. print resolution), I must admit I don't know, but I have never had an issue with how the files exported until the camera upgrade. When I look at the last session I shot with my D5500, the smallest jpg file after export is 4 MB and the largest is almost 13 MB. The first session I shot with my D810 (and the following 15 between now and then) range from 1 MB to 5 MB. I didn't really think twice about it at first because I setup the D810 the same as the D5500 and I naiively thought "more expensive camera = it knows what it's doing".

I agree that not offering prints has been a poor business decision in the grand scheme. As a beginner, I tend to over-compensate in fear of not booking, and while I have gotten a lot of positive feedback for having all-inclusive flat fees, I see what you mean about back firing, (like in this case and what is yet to be seen when the other 15 families attempt to order prints). I am willing to pay for one-on-one mentoring at this point to get it figured out because I'm terrified that my Inbox will flood when everyone else tries to make prints before the holidays!


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

tirediron said:


> Other than the ensuring it has the necessary algorithm to render the raw files, LR doesn't care a whit about what camera  you have.  Output file size is solely a function of input file size + corrections + cropping + output options.  Somewhere you've adjusted an output setting, but where, I can't think of at the moment...  The PPI to which I referred is the one in the Export dialogue box.



Thank you for explaining the output file size in a way that really makes sense to me! I posted a few screenshots in my other reply to show what I am seeing. If there are other output settings, I could very well have changed something and not even known I did it.


----------



## Dave442

I would check the Resize to Fit and put in 3600 on Long Side and see if that would force it to use a larger size. 

I would also set up a User Preset for the export. My user presets include a reference to the size of the image in the file name.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

Dave442 said:


> I would check the Resize to Fit and put in 3600 on Long Side and see if that would force it to use a larger size.
> 
> I would also set up a User Preset for the export. My user presets include a reference to the size of the image in the file name.



Doing that actually decreased the file size from 3,632 KB to 3,522 KB upon export. 

I guess I'm not understanding what the ideal outcome should be, as far as dimensions, resolution, ppi, dpi, etc. According to Shutterfly's minimum requirements, it appears that the photo she is trying to order should be large enough, based on what I can see/understand. 
When I did contract photography work 2 years ago, shooting with my D5200, the photographer told me to change the Quality setting to 80-90 because the files I sent him were so large. When I stepped up to my D5500, I remember a similar instance where a client received the low resolution warning for a canvas and the photographer had me send him the raw file and that was all I knew of it. Anytime I would ask "why", I would get rather dismissive responses. I don't claim to really understand the technical side of Photography, I've just been complacent because it's "worked" thus far.


----------



## Dave442

But is your file manager still showing the image as 1024 x 683? 

Another issue is that the file names you show make me think the image out of the camera is a small JPG file. Are you shooting in both JPG and RAW? Are you only importing the RAW files into LR? Did you import the small JPG files made by the camera and edit those images and then rename them on export?


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

Dave442 said:


> But is your file manager still showing the image as 1024 x 683?
> 
> Another issue is that the file names you show make me think the image out of the camera is a small JPG file. Are you shooting in both JPG and RAW? Are you only importing the RAW files into LR? Did you import the small JPG files made by the camera and edit those images and then rename them on export?



The file manager now says the image is 3600 x 2403...would this suffice for Shutterfly? I don't understand what they're looking for, exactly.

The camera is set up to shoot in RAW only, and upon import, I "Copy as DNG". (I should correct my statement from an earlier reply about the size of the RAW file, when it was in fact the DNG file's Properties that I showed in the screen shot.) The DNG files are all around 30 MB from that shoot so I know the data is there when I begin editing, I just can't figure out why so much of it is lost upon export.


----------



## weepete

Those sizes in the original files look like the issue to me too. I'd check that you are shooting large raw in camera and if you are I'd look into the copy to .DNG settings in case you are downsizing somehow on import. 

Normally I don't bother converting .RAW files to .DNG and just edit them and export. Could try that too


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

weepete said:


> Those sizes in the original files look like the issue to me too. I'd check that you are shooting large raw in camera and if you are I'd look into the copy to .DNG settings in case you are downsizing somehow on import.
> 
> Normally I don't bother converting .RAW files to .DNG and just edit them and export. Could try that too



That's good to know that it isn't necessary to convert. Most of my Lightroom training has been via instructional videos, and that was just something I picked up from one of those. Where can I find the Copy to .DNG settings? I tried right-clicking on it in the Import screen but nothing happened, and also found a Convert Photo to .DNG dialog box from the Library drop-down menu. I'll include a screen shot of that as well so you can see how it is currently set. Something else I just noticed, is that my originals from sessions shot with the D5500 are .NEF files and those taken with the D810 are now being stored as .DNG, but file size remains consistent.


----------



## weepete

I must admit I'm not sure where that might be, as I said I don't do it myself. I'm just thinking that if those .RAW files are showing up that small that something is happening. It does not appear to be your export settings so in my head that only really leaves two options either in camera or on import to lightroom. If it's definatley not a camera setting then there must be some kind of menu in lightroom that's doing it.


----------



## Derrel

I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!


----------



## tirediron

Derrel said:


> I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!


JPG, & set to "small, basic"?


----------



## Derrel

Dave442 said:


> But is your file manager still showing the image as 1024 x 683?
> 
> Another issue is that the file names you show make me think the image out of the camera is a small JPG file. Are you shooting in both JPG and RAW? Are you only importing the RAW files into LR? Did you import the small JPG files made by the camera and edit those images and then rename them on export?



Agree with Dave on this 110 percent...defintely, one really does want to have the operating system *SHOW the file extension* of the files!!! I wondered this myself...I see file names, but no extensions...and I see larger files and smaller ones.


----------



## KmH

Yep.
1024 x 683 bit depth 24 is the JPEG Basic embedded in the Raw file.
That JPEG Basic is embedded in the Raw file so the camera has something it can show the photographer on the rear LCD of the camera.
It's also what Windows shows before the Raw file is edited and what LR shows as it builds the catalog file.

Screen shot #4 is the edited file.
While the Raw file from a D810 is a 12-bit depth or 14-bit depth file depending on your camera settings, screen shot #4 is an 8-bit depth file.
8-bits each and 3 color channels = 24 bits. So a 12-bit depth file would be shown by the Windows file manager as a 36 bit file - 3 color channels of 12-bits each.

Looking at the photo you posted, I highly recommend using supplemental light for fill and accent when the light direction and quality are less than flattering to your subjects.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

tirediron said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!
> 
> 
> 
> JPG, & set to "small, basic"?
Click to expand...


The Image Quality on the camera is set to RAW and has been since I purchased it in September.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

KmH said:


> Yep.
> 1024 x 683 bit depth 24 is the JPEG Basic embedded in the Raw file.
> That JPEG Basic is embedded in the Raw file so the camera has something it can show the photographer on the rear LCD of the camera.
> It's also what Windows shows before the Raw file is edited and what LR shows as it builds the catalog file.
> 
> Screen shot #4 is the edited file.
> While the Raw file from a D810 is a 12-bit depth or 14-bit depth file depending on your camera settings, screen shot #4 is an 8-bit depth file.
> 8-bits each and 3 color channels = 24 bits. So a 12-bit depth file would be shown by the Windows file manager as a 36 bit file - 3 color channels of 12-bits each.
> 
> Looking at the photo you posted, I highly recommend using supplemental light for fill and accent when the light direction and quality are less than flattering to your subjects.



What I'm understanding is that the JPEG files were imported and converted to .DNG, most likely due to a setting in the camera, and that's what I've been editing and exporting from Lightroom?  
I'm still confused about the size of the .DNG files in my backup folders, compared to the size of the JPEG files after export. Based on my basic understanding, it looks like there should be enough data in the original file (30 MB) to be able to edit and export and image around 5-8 MB, at least. I know I'm not using the correct terminology and if there's something else that I can screenshot that would be helpful, please let me know!

I appreciate the feedback on the photo, but at this point my main concern is knowing if this is something that can be corrected using the backup files that I have saved, and how can I correct it going forward.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

Derrel said:


> Dave442 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But is your file manager still showing the image as 1024 x 683?
> 
> Another issue is that the file names you show make me think the image out of the camera is a small JPG file. Are you shooting in both JPG and RAW? Are you only importing the RAW files into LR? Did you import the small JPG files made by the camera and edit those images and then rename them on export?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with Dave on this 110 percent...defintely, one really does want to have the operating system *SHOW the file extension* of the files!!! I wondered this myself...I see file names, but no extensions...and I see larger files and smaller ones.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by this...


----------



## astroNikon

I'm curious how this is going to get sorted out.

but you may want to:
Take new test shots 
Login to your computer as a different user (as this, at least on my computer, does not bring over any defaults for LightRoom import, etc )
Then run through the process of the NEF file to JPEG
then run a test of the DNG converted file to JPEG.
and write down and compare each file specification as you go through it.


----------



## BareFeetPhotography

Derrel said:


> I saw the 1024 x 683 pixel size...that is a SMALL image area for an image coming from a D810!!!



I should clarify that the file properties in the screen shot are from the .DNG files, not the RAW files. Someone else mentioned that it isn't necessary to Convert to .DNG upon Import to LR, and now I definitely see how that can backfire because now I don't seem to have the RAW files that I assumed were backed up all along. Is there a way to enlarge these so they would be suitable for print? I can change my camera and LR settings going forward, but I'm really trying to salvage all the photos I've taken and converted to .DNG in the last couple months.


----------



## KmH

You do not need to change the file type from DNG.
No. You can't just up-res a 1024 x 683 (low image resolution) photo and make a high quality print out of it.

If you don't already have them I highly recommend you get and keep handy for reference:
The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers
The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop (2nd Edition)
The Digital Print: Preparing Images in Lightroom and Photoshop for Printing
Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)
The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC / Lightroom 6 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers
And get the CC 2017 version (recently released) of this when it comes out if you use Photoshop CC:
Adobe Photoshop CC for Photographers: 2016 Edition - Version 2015.5


----------



## Piccell

The software will only do what it is told, even if you tell it nothing, it has a default. Somewhere you are telling it to output the file in that size.


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter

Piccell said:


> _*The software will only do what it is told*_,
> even if you tell it nothing, it has a default. Somewhere you are telling it to output the file in that size.



Good first assumption, but with years in software development management behind me, I suggest that when this much effort is expended to find operator error, it is time to consider the code! With updates, there can be new bugs.
did you recently upgrade?
do you have another computer with Lightroom installed?
I believe Lightroom is cloud-based only, so these typical first questions may be moot.  Only Adobe can address this change.

If your computer has settings for cloud access you might find a difference by accessing from a different computer.

Because you are using it for work, I strongly suggest getting Adobe to help you.  I consider their support to address surprises like this to be part of your yearly rental fee.

p.s.  Don't ever accept a response, "you are the only one who complained" because MOST companies do a horrible job of collecting and organizing customer complaints.  You can test them by creating a second complaint and when they say this, ask them if they see your other complaint...


----------

