sincurves Posted May 14, 2021 Share #1 Posted May 14, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) Slightly puzzled when I export two versions of the same photo in LR: sRGB (25MB) and AdobeRGB (21MB), both JPGs. All settings are the same except the colorspace. I would have expected the sRGB to have been smaller in size than AdobeRGB - if any difference at all. Any thoughts on what causes this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 14, 2021 Posted May 14, 2021 Hi sincurves, Take a look here S3 - colorspace and file size. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mgrayson3 Posted May 14, 2021 Share #2 Posted May 14, 2021 Guessing here... A smaller color space will have more variation in its numerical color values. A wide gamut color space image looks flat when viewed as pure numbers. Two adjacent pixels with red values of .25 and .75 in an sRGB file might have values 0.3 and 0.7 in AdobeRGB. These look the same on the screen, because the software knows what color these numbers mean in their respective color spaces. But in the file, they are different numbers. Higher variation files (noise, contrast) compress less well than smoother or low contrast files, because the algorithms stop at a level of preserved detail, not at a compression amount. A solid blue rectangle compresses to "Dude, it's a blue rectangle". Pure noise can't be compressed without loss at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted May 14, 2021 Share #3 Posted May 14, 2021 I assumed it was Leica punishing you for crushing the colors. 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sincurves Posted May 15, 2021 Author Share #4 Posted May 15, 2021 16 hours ago, mgrayson3 said: Guessing here... A smaller color space will have more variation in its numerical color values. A wide gamut color space image looks flat when viewed as pure numbers. Two adjacent pixels with red values of .25 and .75 in an sRGB file might have values 0.3 and 0.7 in AdobeRGB. These look the same on the screen, because the software knows what color these numbers mean in their respective color spaces. But in the file, they are different numbers. Higher variation files (noise, contrast) compress less well than smoother or low contrast files, because the algorithms stop at a level of preserved detail, not at a compression amount. A solid blue rectangle compresses to "Dude, it's a blue rectangle". Pure noise can't be compressed without loss at all. That could very well be the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.