A question about processing from RAW.

**Skodadriver** · 03-12-2018, 07:43 AM

I have a gift copy of DxO optics Pro 7, it came with a magazine some years ago.
Today I thought I would shoot RAW with my DA L 55-300mm and see what it could do with my images. I did not process myself, just left the image to be processed by DxO automatically.
While I could see that the RAW images had been processed, they looked a little over processed to me (but what do I know) so let Picasa process the raw image as well. I was surprised to see the Picasa jpeg file was a little larger that the DxO jpeg.
I took an image in RAW+DNG and processed them in DxO and Picasa.
The RAW file shows a file size of 24.6 MB
The DxO jpeg shows a file size of 3.1 MB
The Picasa jpeg from Raw shows a file size of 3.3 MB
The jpeg from the camera shows a file size of 9 MB

Why the disparity in file sizes? Is this the result of different compression being applied?
Dazed and confused.

**jatrax** · 03-12-2018, 07:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Skodadriver

Why the disparity in file sizes? Is this the result of different compression being applied?

Yes. RAW of 24mb is about right. jpeg from a RAW that size can range (for me) from 4.5mb to 11mb. You would need to check the compression (or 'quality') settings in the software. The setting will range from 0 to 100 or 1 to 10 or 1 to 12 or maybe some other scale. Usually something in the 80% range is acceptable and a good compromise between size and quality. 3.1mb seems low to me so I suspect a compression setting of maybe 60%??
The other thing to look at is the jpeg pixel size, is the file being exported at a smaller size in addition to the compression?

**Skodadriver** · 03-12-2018, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Yes. RAW of 24mb is about right. jpeg from a RAW that size can range (for me) from 4.5mb to 11mb. You would need to check the compression (or 'quality') settings in the software. The setting will range from 0 to 100 or 1 to 10 or 1 to 12 or maybe some other scale. Usually something in the 80% range is acceptable and a good compromise between size and quality. 3.1mb seems low to me so I suspect a compression setting of maybe 60%??
The other thing to look at is the jpeg pixel size, is the file being exported at a smaller size in addition to the compression?

A quick look into both the free DxO package and Picasa does not show me an option to decrease the compression. At least I now can think about ditching DxO and getting a better processing package or just use the camera jpeg and adjust in photo gallery or Picasa.

BrianR · 03-12-2018, 10:45 AM

Picasa should give you compression settings in the 'export to folder' dialog... under "Image Quality" hit 'Automatic' and change it to "Custom"

The oldest 'free' DXO I have is 9.5, it likewise has a JPEG quality slider under 'Export Raw To Disk, it's hard to imagine they haven't had this as an option from the start.

At the highest quality settings, the jpeg outputs from Pentax dslrs err on the side of very, very, very low compression. This is great if you're using it as a 'master file', but when sending to most other places (interwebs, email, or even small sized prints), it tends to give extreme file sizes with very little quality improvement.

Always relevant to jpeg file size vs quality, I do love this link. It's aimed at Lightroom, but the general principles of compression vs quality work for any program Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings

Note that image content also plays a factor on jpeg size (as evidenced in the link above).

**Skodadriver** · 03-12-2018, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

Picasa should give you compression settings in the 'export to folder' dialog... under "Image Quality" hit 'Automatic' and change it to "Custom"

The oldest 'free' DXO I have is 9.5, it likewise has a JPEG quality slider under 'Export Raw To Disk, it's hard to imagine they haven't had this as an option from the start.

At the highest quality settings, the jpeg outputs from Pentax dslrs err on the side of very, very, very low compression. This is great if you're using it as a 'master file', but when sending to most other places (interwebs, email, or even small sized prints), it tends to give extreme file sizes with very little quality improvement.

Always relevant to jpeg file size vs quality, I do love this link. It's aimed at Lightroom, but the general principles of compression vs quality work for any program Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings

Note that image content also plays a factor on jpeg size (as evidenced in the link above).

Thank you for that information, I will probably leave off worrying about processing for a while now, never process much anyway and generally very pleased with the out of camera jpegs at the best quality settings.
I will investigate DxO and Picasa further when I have a couple of hours or more that I can devote to it.

**jatrax** · 03-12-2018, 01:40 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Skodadriver

Thank you for that information, I will probably leave off worrying about processing for a while now, never process much anyway and generally very pleased with the out of camera jpegs at the best quality settings.

IMHO, RAW processing is something that you either do 100% of the time or not at all. If you don't want to learn how to do it, just stay with jpegs and perhaps adjust the camera jpeg settings to suit. There is no (IMHO) benefit to shooting RAW and then running it through a RAW processor on 'automatic', the camera will do as well or better. There is a benefit (IMHO) if you shoot RAW, get a good processor and spend the time to learn it. But if you are happy with the camera jpegs just stick with those.

**Wingincamera** · 03-12-2018, 05:01 PM

Also, the size of the jpeg will be affected by the subject matter. Example a photo of a blue sky will be much smaller than a forest scene or something with lots of detail.

**bwgv001** · 03-12-2018, 09:01 PM

If you like to try RAW processing; try free packages like Rawtherapee. Powerful package; may be a little steep learning curve; but plenty of You tube videos.

**Skodadriver** · 03-12-2018, 11:53 PM

Thank you everybody for your advice.

03-12-2018, 07:43 AM	#1
Skodadriver Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 892	A question about processing from RAW. I have a gift copy of DxO optics Pro 7, it came with a magazine some years ago. Today I thought I would shoot RAW with my DA L 55-300mm and see what it could do with my images. I did not process myself, just left the image to be processed by DxO automatically. While I could see that the RAW images had been processed, they looked a little over processed to me (but what do I know) so let Picasa process the raw image as well. I was surprised to see the Picasa jpeg file was a little larger that the DxO jpeg. I took an image in RAW+DNG and processed them in DxO and Picasa. The RAW file shows a file size of 24.6 MB The DxO jpeg shows a file size of 3.1 MB The Picasa jpeg from Raw shows a file size of 3.3 MB The jpeg from the camera shows a file size of 9 MB Why the disparity in file sizes? Is this the result of different compression being applied? Dazed and confused.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Raw Processing - Best RAW Converter?	interested_observer	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	10-15-2011 02:32 PM
Lens Correction: 15mm DA Limited (in-camera Pentax Kx processing or post-processing?)	ADHWJC	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	11-29-2010 08:11 PM
Question on processing Raw files?	frattofoto	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	09-01-2010 11:22 PM
RAW, Raw, or raw?	stewart_photo	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	01-22-2009 07:14 PM

03-12-2018, 07:55 AM - 1 Like	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Skodadriver Why the disparity in file sizes? Is this the result of different compression being applied? Yes. RAW of 24mb is about right. jpeg from a RAW that size can range (for me) from 4.5mb to 11mb. You would need to check the compression (or 'quality') settings in the software. The setting will range from 0 to 100 or 1 to 10 or 1 to 12 or maybe some other scale. Usually something in the 80% range is acceptable and a good compromise between size and quality. 3.1mb seems low to me so I suspect a compression setting of maybe 60%?? The other thing to look at is the jpeg pixel size, is the file being exported at a smaller size in addition to the compression?

03-12-2018, 08:16 AM	#3
Skodadriver Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 892 Original Poster	Originally posted by jatrax Yes. RAW of 24mb is about right. jpeg from a RAW that size can range (for me) from 4.5mb to 11mb. You would need to check the compression (or 'quality') settings in the software. The setting will range from 0 to 100 or 1 to 10 or 1 to 12 or maybe some other scale. Usually something in the 80% range is acceptable and a good compromise between size and quality. 3.1mb seems low to me so I suspect a compression setting of maybe 60%?? The other thing to look at is the jpeg pixel size, is the file being exported at a smaller size in addition to the compression? A quick look into both the free DxO package and Picasa does not show me an option to decrease the compression. At least I now can think about ditching DxO and getting a better processing package or just use the camera jpeg and adjust in photo gallery or Picasa.

03-12-2018, 10:45 AM	#4
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Picasa should give you compression settings in the 'export to folder' dialog... under "Image Quality" hit 'Automatic' and change it to "Custom" The oldest 'free' DXO I have is 9.5, it likewise has a JPEG quality slider under 'Export Raw To Disk, it's hard to imagine they haven't had this as an option from the start. At the highest quality settings, the jpeg outputs from Pentax dslrs err on the side of very, very, very low compression. This is great if you're using it as a 'master file', but when sending to most other places (interwebs, email, or even small sized prints), it tends to give extreme file sizes with very little quality improvement. Always relevant to jpeg file size vs quality, I do love this link. It's aimed at Lightroom, but the general principles of compression vs quality work for any program Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings Note that image content also plays a factor on jpeg size (as evidenced in the link above).

03-12-2018, 12:39 PM	#5
Skodadriver Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 892 Original Poster	Originally posted by BrianR Picasa should give you compression settings in the 'export to folder' dialog... under "Image Quality" hit 'Automatic' and change it to "Custom" The oldest 'free' DXO I have is 9.5, it likewise has a JPEG quality slider under 'Export Raw To Disk, it's hard to imagine they haven't had this as an option from the start. At the highest quality settings, the jpeg outputs from Pentax dslrs err on the side of very, very, very low compression. This is great if you're using it as a 'master file', but when sending to most other places (interwebs, email, or even small sized prints), it tends to give extreme file sizes with very little quality improvement. Always relevant to jpeg file size vs quality, I do love this link. It's aimed at Lightroom, but the general principles of compression vs quality work for any program Jeffrey Friedl's Blog » An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings Note that image content also plays a factor on jpeg size (as evidenced in the link above). Thank you for that information, I will probably leave off worrying about processing for a while now, never process much anyway and generally very pleased with the out of camera jpegs at the best quality settings. I will investigate DxO and Picasa further when I have a couple of hours or more that I can devote to it.

03-12-2018, 01:40 PM - 1 Like	#6
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Skodadriver Thank you for that information, I will probably leave off worrying about processing for a while now, never process much anyway and generally very pleased with the out of camera jpegs at the best quality settings. IMHO, RAW processing is something that you either do 100% of the time or not at all. If you don't want to learn how to do it, just stay with jpegs and perhaps adjust the camera jpeg settings to suit. There is no (IMHO) benefit to shooting RAW and then running it through a RAW processor on 'automatic', the camera will do as well or better. There is a benefit (IMHO) if you shoot RAW, get a good processor and spend the time to learn it. But if you are happy with the camera jpegs just stick with those.

03-12-2018, 05:01 PM	#7
Wingincamera Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Pine Haven, Wyoming Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,182	Also, the size of the jpeg will be affected by the subject matter. Example a photo of a blue sky will be much smaller than a forest scene or something with lots of detail.

03-12-2018, 09:01 PM	#8
bwgv001 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 697	If you like to try RAW processing; try free packages like Rawtherapee. Powerful package; may be a little steep learning curve; but plenty of You tube videos.

03-12-2018, 11:53 PM	#9
Skodadriver Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 892 Original Poster	Thank you everybody for your advice.