Post by BuckSkin on Jul 6, 2021 7:59:22 GMT
I had always understood RAW image files to be much larger than their jpeg counterparts; but, if one manipulates and enhances their images, I have found that not to be the case.
I just now finished running 70 RAW images through DxO, saving them as 100% Quality jpegs.
Nothing else has yet been done to these images.
The 70 RAW come to 1.74-GB (0.025-GB per file); surprisingly, the 70 DxO jpegs come to 1.73-GB.
In comparison, the straight-out-of-camera washed out pitiful-looking jpegs (in comparison to the DxO converted jpegs) tally up to a huge 496-mb (7.086-mb per).
I am going to keep an eye on this group and see what I have after adding all the Metadata, tags, comments, captions, and such and then finish them off in Elements.
I have been using ExifToolGUI to add as much data as possible into the RAW files before conversion, but there is still quite a load to add once they are jpegs.
Although my comparisons are from files converted in DxO, I figure similar results will occur regardless of the RAW converter used.
I just now finished running 70 RAW images through DxO, saving them as 100% Quality jpegs.
Nothing else has yet been done to these images.
The 70 RAW come to 1.74-GB (0.025-GB per file); surprisingly, the 70 DxO jpegs come to 1.73-GB.
In comparison, the straight-out-of-camera washed out pitiful-looking jpegs (in comparison to the DxO converted jpegs) tally up to a huge 496-mb (7.086-mb per).
I am going to keep an eye on this group and see what I have after adding all the Metadata, tags, comments, captions, and such and then finish them off in Elements.
I have been using ExifToolGUI to add as much data as possible into the RAW files before conversion, but there is still quite a load to add once they are jpegs.
Although my comparisons are from files converted in DxO, I figure similar results will occur regardless of the RAW converter used.