Jump to content

What am I doing wrong? I only get 21.5 MB


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, DavidJohn said:

I just got an SL2.  LOVE IT.  However, I only get around 20 MB.  Have I set something incorrectly?

Am I getting the full 47 Megapixels?

Or, am I mixing something up?

 

You’re shooting JPEG. That’s why.

Edited by beewee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just snapped a picture at DNG, and one at DNG + JPG.

The DNG says 86.7 MB.  How can that be?  That can't be referring to how many megapixels, can it?

DNG + JPG says 20.1 MB.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both images are 8368 x 5584 (46.7 megapixels). JPG is 20.1 megabytes and DNG is 86.7 megabytes. JPG is a compressed format where as DNG is a raw format. 

Megapixels is a metric of how many ‘dots’ (pixels) make up an image. Megabytes refer to how much space the file take up on your storage medium, whether that’s a hard drive, SSD, etc.

I suggest you do some reading on what DNG and JPG formats are and how they should be used to get the most out of your camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to learn a bit about file types, bit depth and compression to understand what's going on but in short, your camera is fine.

JPEG files are compressed and 8 bit. So they're smaller than the original file. They're compressed when saved and then reconstructed when opened.

RAW files are all the data from the sensor plus other stuff, like lens profile information, colour LUTs and are typically 12 or 14 bit from a camera like the SL2. That means they're big but flexible. You'll get the highest quality from post processing of a raw file in software like C1 or Lightroom or others.

Think of a JPEG like a 10x8 work print. Often good enough but not perfect. And a RAW file like the negative. All the information but needs a skilled printer to get the most from it.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jankap said:

Nonsense! Make pictures with your camera! Leave the technical part to the pixel peepers. Have you ever tried to understand what was going on in Tri-X?

Well, I sure did. I had detailed notes about different developers, temperatures and even tanks. Ansel Adams' "The Negative" was a bible to me and many many others.

You could drop your film off to the local chemist (jpeg) or develop yourself (raw). Depends how much you enjoy the process after pressing the button, I suppose.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

You'll need to learn a bit about file types, bit depth and compression to understand what's going on but in short, your camera is fine.

JPEG files are compressed and 8 bit. So they're smaller than the original file. They're compressed when saved and then reconstructed when opened.

RAW files are all the data from the sensor plus other stuff, like lens profile information, colour LUTs and are typically 12 or 14 bit from a camera like the SL2. That means they're big but flexible. You'll get the highest quality from post processing of a raw file in software like C1 or Lightroom or others.

Think of a JPEG like a 10x8 work print. Often good enough but not perfect. And a RAW file like the negative. All the information but needs a skilled printer to get the most from it.

Gordon

This is helpful.  Thanks.  I think I'm starting to get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Well, I sure did. I had detailed notes about different developers, temperatures and even tanks. Ansel Adams' "The Negative" was a bible to me and many many others.

You could drop your film off to the local chemist (jpeg) or develop yourself (raw). Depends how much you enjoy the process after pressing the button, I suppose.

Gordon

Ahhhh, those fine memories.  I'm looking at my copy of The Negative at this moment.  I used to love those hours in the darkroom, creating, experimenting, perfecting...making the image say what I wanted it to say.  But I just don't get that joy from working on a computer.  For me, it's just work.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jankap said:

Nonsense! Make pictures with your camera! Leave the technical part to the pixel peepers. Have you ever tried to understand what was going on in Tri-X?

Yes, this hits home.  Taking photographs, having a "deeper conversation with the world" (a quote from a photographer whose name I can't recall), making sense of things, appreciating what is around me—that's what it's all about for me.

I'll try to get a basic understanding of the technical part so I can get the benefit of what my camera has to offer, but I will spend most of my time taking pictures rather than working on the computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I know exactly where you are coming from. I've been shooting for 10 years of my career as a cameraman on film (how much I loved to see the results a few days later, without the boring "what you see is what you get"). And I spent in my youth some time in the darkroom. But the digital darkroom of today isn't necessarily a tedious and frustrating experience. I've embraced the digital colour and B&W world and don't look back. 

If I may, one tiny piece of advice for the digital novice with tons of analogue knowledge. Don't go down the LUT and preset rabbit hole for fast and convenient results. It's much better to buy into one of the two professional raw converters, Capture One (my choice) and Adobe Lightroom, and learn the digital postproduction from scratch. Yes, it's a giant cake to swallow, but as with the real darkroom, there is no shortcut if you want satisfying results that will hold up well. And you'll see that your trained eyes will give you a tremendous head start.

If you are into B&W like me, Capture One is an excellent tool for bringing out the best B&W results off your colour-shot raw files. Below, an example that mimics quite well red filtering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jankap said:

Nonsense! Make pictures with your camera! Leave the technical part to the pixel peepers. Have you ever tried to understand what was going on in Tri-X?

Err... Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavidJohn said:

Ahhhh, those fine memories.  I'm looking at my copy of The Negative at this moment.  I used to love those hours in the darkroom, creating, experimenting, perfecting...making the image say what I wanted it to say.  But I just don't get that joy from working on a computer.  For me, it's just work.  

If your output goal is a print, rather than a screen shot, do yourself a favor and learn the basics, preferably sticking (at least initially) to one editing software. With Lightroom, for instance, there are many good online tutorials (free from Julieanne Kost with Adobe) and books (from Kelby and others) as starting points and as ongoing references, as well as various courses and workshops.  People assimilate information different ways.

Darkroom or digital, the goals remain the same for me. Only the tools have changed. And for flexibility and convenience, digital is far superior; it needn’t require endless hours in front of a computer. Once the basic techniques are understood, it’s still about applying them judiciously to achieve your desired rendering.  For prints, that still includes paper choice, display lighting and all that other stuff from film days.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP, and anyone else too!  In film days we relied upon physics, chemistry and a dollop of magic to create images; in our digital days we need to add statistics. The Leica  'colour' sensors are Bayer pattern sensors, which means that 25% of the pixels record only red, 25% record only blue, and 50% record only green. In order to make a full colour image each of the R, G, and B pixels needs to ask its neighbours for their info and figure out what is the most likely level of the other two colours that ought to be 'seen' by each of them — statistics!

So, a 24 megapixel sensor (my M-P) typically makes for a 21 to 26 mb DNG file.

Once processed in any RAW processor the file makes for a 68 mb or so file, if in 8 bit; or a 136 mb file if it is in 16 bit.

-------------------

In terms of workflow, unless I have a need to process a file in Photoshop, and therefore produce a PSD or TIF file, I do my processing in Lightroom all the way to printing. That way I avoid making multiple files of the same image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everybody mentioning and advising Lightroom, it is one of the avenues to go Ito digital processing, and I am sure it has its champions but there are others.

Lightroom is program by Adobe, it’s key feature is image cataloguing, it does same thing as Adobe ACR, see next paragraph,  not for everyone.  I have been using computer from 1980s and developed my own simple filing system, usually by date monthly or session,  naming file directories in logical and easy to understand way, for instance 2021-08-16-Holiday.  

Post processing program with same image processing abilities is Adobe ACR or Adobe Converter Raw, it is integral part of full PhotoShop.  The Adobe Creative Cloud subscription includes Photoshop and Lightroom into base package, cost about two/three cups of coffee a month in your local coffee shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

To the OP, and anyone else too!  In film days we relied upon physics, chemistry and a dollop of magic to create images; in our digital days we need to add statistics. The Leica  'colour' sensors are Bayer pattern sensors, which means that 25% of the pixels record only red, 25% record only blue, and 50% record only green. In order to make a full colour image each of the R, G, and B pixels needs to ask its neighbours for their info and figure out what is the most likely level of the other two colours that ought to be 'seen' by each of them — statistics!

So, a 24 megapixel sensor (my M-P) typically makes for a 21 to 26 mb DNG file.

Once processed in any RAW processor the file makes for a 68 mb or so file, if in 8 bit; or a 136 mb file if it is in 16 bit.

-------------------

In terms of workflow, unless I have a need to process a file in Photoshop, and therefore produce a PSD or TIF file, I do my processing in Lightroom all the way to printing. That way I avoid making multiple files of the same image.

Which current full frame camera is 16bit?

Another poorly understood aspect in digital photography commonly encountered here on LUF, there is no quality loss between uncompressed and lossless-compressed RAW file, benefit is smaller digital file.  I hear argument digital memory is cheap, so is misuse of earth resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Why is everybody mentioning and advising Lightroom, it is one of the avenues to go Ito digital processing, and I am sure it has its champions but there are others.

 

I used it only by popular example. The same principles and recommendations apply regardless of software chosen.  I also get Photoshop for my 10 bucks a month, and enjoy it along with ImagePrint and other software for specific applications. But for those starting out, I believe in keeping it simple… pick one and learn it fully.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I used it only by popular example. The same principles and recommendations apply regardless of software chosen.  I also get Photoshop for my 10 bucks a month, and enjoy it along with ImagePrint and other software for specific applications. But for those starting out, I believe in keeping it simple… pick one and learn it fully.

Jeff

Re Lightroom; I understand popular example, after all it was maybe still is is bundled with new Leica cameras. My argument is it forces first time user into catalogue approach which is not only or easiest way to manage digital images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...