[FHPhotographer]

I'm stumped. I shot in RAW, edited in CS4 and saved as a TIFF file, then converted to 8bits jpeg and resized to 432 × 563 pixels and saved the 721KB jpeg file. But now if I try to load it to photobucket etc, it reads the file as 2.2MB. Opened and viewed in PS "Image Size" the size is correct, but no matter what resolution, size etc I save it as, PS increases the the size by a factor of four. Any suggestions?
Brian

Look at the size of the file on your HD without opening it. You know, right click properties.

[FHPhotographer]

graphicgr8s, I did, it says 2.2MB. I tried opening (again, PS says 712KB) and saving as a jpeg with a different file name, and in PS it reads small, but once saved it was "downsized" to 2.2MB. Everything I read online says it can't happen,
Brian

[Jim Royal]

Can you post a screen shot of your Image Size dialogue box when you've entereted the correct dimensions, but before you click OK?

[FHPhotographer]

Odd, other images (like this one) are OK as long as they start out in jpeg, it's the RAW>TIFF>JPEG that may be causing the problem? As you can see below, saved on the desktop it's 2.2MB, but in PS4 it's 712KB,
Brian

[Jim Royal]

Really bizarre. Try going into Preferences and set Image Previews to "Never Save".

Also, are you using Save for Web or Save As?

[Marc Sabatella]

There's no contradiction at all. Photoshop isn't saying the *file size* is 712KB - it's saying the *pixel dimensions* are 712K (KP). Number of pixels in an image and number of bytes in the files are not normally equal.

[FHPhotographer]

Marc, I've been converting RAW>TIFF>JPEG images for a couple of years now, and this has never happened before. It's as though there is some data in this file that I can't see or edit, or it's saying JPEG but really saving as TIFF, or something.

So you calculate the "size" in KB/MB from the pixel size ? Is it 432 (W) + 563 (H) x 72 = 716 (KP?) for the image in question? But the KB/MB size doesn't show up in PS (or I'm not reading the information correctly), so there's no way of seeing the size of an image until it's saved?

I've got to go back to basic info on pixels/ size / converting etc and see what I've missed,
Brian

[Wheatfield]

It's entirely possible that your CS4 has developed a bug, so don't discount that possibility.
Have you tried saving to a new name?
It might behoove you to delete the problem file entirely and start again.
I've had weird things happen with CS4 that just can't be explained, and have heard similar stories from other people, though there is no commonality other than things not working as they should.
CS4 is not good software.

[FHPhotographer]

wheat, strange isn't it. Things happen that folks claim can't happen, or they haven't seen happen before, and, therefore, didn't happen. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on my K20 and send it back for a third repair and, then only, qualify for possible warranty replacement (probably with a third-hand refurbished unit). And that's only if everybody agrees it's the same problem, even though they didn't know what the problem was the first two times. Sorry about the rant, I'm just getting high-teched off,
Brian

You're having sucky luck with your K20D. I remember you debating getting it or the D90 after you killed your K100. It's interesting (and cruel sometimes) what fate seems to throw at us after making a choice. Or, maybe, it was just your time to draw the short straw camera wise and it didn't matter which one you bought.
Hopefully, this time, the K20 will behave itself.

If not, maybe a higher power is trying to tell you it's time to take up crochet.

[FHPhotographer]

Brit, good idea. I think I'll crochet a whole-body snood, crawl in and wait... and wait...and wait,
Brian

[Marc Sabatella]

Marc, I've been converting RAW>TIFF>JPEG images for a couple of years now, and this has never happened before.

You've never had a file where the number pixels didn't exactly match the number of bytes in the file? Sorry, but that's flat out impossible. The number of pixels almost *never* matches the number of bytes. I can only assume you must not have paid that attention to these numbers before, or that you normally use a level of JPEG compression that happens to result in a file size that is close enough to the number of pixels that you never worried about the discrepancy. But more compression gives you a smaller file in bytes for the same number of pixels. And likewise, less compression gives you a bigger file in bytes for the same number of pixels. This file must have had relatively low compression compared to what you normally use - or else has a ton of metadata (EXIF, IPTC info, etc). I routinely generate JPEG files with 2.2MP, but depending on the level of compression I apply, I might get files of only 100K or files of about 3MB.

The fact that with 2.2M worth of pixels, I could only a get a file as big as about 3M worth of bytes does suggest something is unusual in your situation - I'm not sure there is a level of JPEG compression low enough to give a 2MB file size if you have only 712K of pixels. So there could be an unusually big block of metadata (keywords, captions, LR adjustment parameters, etc) or something. Or maybe it really just is very low compression. Definitely worth looking at. But whatever the result here, the bottom line is that the numbers you are comparing are not 8suppsoed* to be equal. Pixels are not bytes; counting pixels does not give you a count of bytes.

So you calculate the "size" in KB/MB from the pixel size ?

No. As I said, number of pixels has nothing to do with file size. Well, OK, in a basic dense, more pixels means bigger files all else equal. but there is no formula to tell you the file size given the number of pixels - there's too many variables involved. Such as amount of compression, whether you are using 8 bits per channel or 16, how much metadata your file has, etc.

But the KB/MB size doesn't show up in PS (or I'm not reading the information correctly), so there's no way of seeing the size of an image until it's saved?

Correct, because it's not until it's saved that the compression is applied. Perhaps there's a dialog somewhere that tells you what the file size *would* be *if* saved it with the currently selected level of compression.

[Lowell Goudge]

A couple of WAGs here.

is it possible that you are accidentally changing the DPI without actually resampling down? other forum members have had this issue. there will be a check box on the resize option somewhere for resampling and interpolation.

also, is it possible that the program is reporting the RGB bitmap size when opened, as opposed to the compressed jpeg size when the file is saved?

Is it possible that you have inadvertantly modified the JPEG compression?

A couple of WAGs here.

is it possible that you are accidentally changing the DPI without actually resampling down? other forum members have had this issue. there will be a check box on the resize option somewhere for resampling and interpolation.

also, is it possible that the program is reporting the RGB bitmap size when opened, as opposed to the compressed jpeg size when the file is saved?

Is it possible that you have inadvertantly modified the JPEG compression?

Lowell from the screen shot he has resample checked.

But I just thought of something, it's possible he is saving at a quality of 12. The highest. It is better to save at 10. It will not degrade the IQ much if at all but knocks file size down a lot.

Well he sent me the file and he is doing nothing wrong. Even I can't get the file size down. There is something hidden that I just can't find in the little time I had to work on it lastnight.

Brian, why did you run an unsharp mask so early in your work? That's the last operation you want to do to a file.

Send me the original jpeg or raw file and the tiff you created.

George