| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2013 08:43:04 AM · #1 |
I imported my RAW file into Lightroom. File size is ~20Mb. I did some touching up in LR before exporting to NIK SEP for B&W conversion, and then brought back into LR for a few more edits. I then saved the file as an uncompressed TIFF.
However, the resulting file is now 105Mb. How on earth did my file just get 5x larger?
Im naive about such things, but I don't understand how editing a file can introduce so much more information?
Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 08:55:09 AM · #2 |
Did you make any layers in LR? Because when you do (by copying the background layer) you also add the size (Mb) to it. By bringing it back to one layer and save it to JPEG you will get back (approximately) the original size again.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 09:01:01.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:00:13 AM · #3 |
double thread
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 09:00:39.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:16:34 AM · #4 |
Lightroom doesn't have layers.
When I saved the image as a full-sized JPEG it was only 3Mb. So there's something very different between how the file is saved between TIFF and JPEG. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:19:12 AM · #5 |
Sure, RAW files are just a dump of sensor data - Tiff's are the result of the interpreted data, uncompressed, and since the data has been interpreted there is an accompanying increase in size.
Make sense?
In the case of JPG's they are interpreted, but they're also massively compressed, plus big chunks of near-neighbor data are simply thrown away in areas of contiguous color.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 09:20:47. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:23:14 AM · #6 |
| fyi, be aware of tiffs larger than 100mb in windows. if you go into file manager you may experience a sever lag. for that reason i deal with .psd now. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:23:29 AM · #7 |
I think you'll find that RAW files are quite well compressed to start with. Creating a compressed version of the RAWs from my camera takes them from 16MB to 13MB using 7zip (15MB using standard .zip), so not much more compression possible.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 09:25:04. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 10:05:20 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by paynekj:
I think you'll find that RAW files are quite well compressed to start with. Creating a compressed version of the RAWs from my camera takes them from 16MB to 13MB using 7zip (15MB using standard .zip), so not much more compression possible. |
are they even compressed? its just raw image data, you need a raw editor to even view it. the preview in the camera is an embedded jpeg.
you cant modify a raw file. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 10:30:19 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by paynekj:
I think you'll find that RAW files are quite well compressed to start with. Creating a compressed version of the RAWs from my camera takes them from 16MB to 13MB using 7zip (15MB using standard .zip), so not much more compression possible. |
are they even compressed? its just raw image data, you need a raw editor to even view it. the preview in the camera is an embedded jpeg.
you cant modify a raw file. |
RAW data files normally use lossless compression, and are not very compressible beyond their native state.
ETA: The RAW data will usually have 14 bits per pixel, and of course there is only one channel per pixel, since only Red, Green, or Blue is recorded at each location (except Foveon). After conversion to TIFF, you will have 16 bits per channel, three channels per pixel. So the file size will be somewhat more than 3 times the size of the RAW file, not taking into account that the RAW file is compressedn and the TIFF is not. FWIW, there's no reason not to use lossless compression on your TIFF files, other than it takes slightly longer to read and write them.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 10:40:39. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 12:53:41 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, there's no reason not to use lossless compression on your TIFF files, other than it takes slightly longer to read and write them. |
In the versions I've worked with, a TIFF saved with the LZW (lossless) compression option do not have an attached thumbnail/preview image, which can be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on how slow or fast your OS might be ... as far as I can tell, TIFFs may also lose the EXIF data (the version of IrfanView I use won't read it anyway).
If you are doing any kind of desktop publishing, some other programs might not be able to place/import a compressed TIFF.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 12:55:15. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 03:45:04 PM · #11 |
Paul, I agree with your statememnts. I should clarify that, when I think about using the TIFF format, it is normally only an intermediate format used during editing, where lossless compression and high bit depth are needed to maintain highest image quality. I personally wouldn't use TIFF for end-use applications like dropping into a document; for that, a JPEG seems to make much more sense.
ETA:
Where I normally need a transitional format is when I need to export from Lr to multiplle files, as when I am stitching a panorama. I will normally use 16-bit TIFF as the export format, stitch the panorama, and save the result as a PSD. Once I'm satisfied with the stitch, the TIFF files are superfluous.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 15:47:28. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 03:56:11 PM · #12 |
One case where you might need a TIFF as your final result is if you want to submit pre-separated files for CMYK offset printing, though I most often used EPS in that case, or if the final result is a bitmap (line art).
I also mostly use the TIFF files as an intermediate composite where I want to keep all the data for later repurposing. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 06:46:38 PM EDT.
