I am having trouble with Lightroom 5 exporting images at incorrect file sizes. For example, if I use my export preset for images with long edge 2500 pixels and maximum size 1000k it is exporting images at 1500-2500k.
View 7 Replies
I am new to Lightroom. I give my clients their pictures on a cd/DVD to take to their prefferd printer and make prints in whatever size they like. However, I have been readings some forums and am confused about how to export my pictures so that they can be printed at any size but without having heads or feet cut off during enlargements,etc. basically, how should I export my pictures do that they can be printed at any size ( 4x6 or 8x10 pr even larger)without any loss of image. I currently have it set at 300 dpi and no sharpening because I do my sharpening in Lightroom.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI am new to Lightroom. When I export a group of photos some are around 3000x4000 and others are around 6000x8000.
These larger sizes will not upload to my Picasa Web Albums. Why are they different sizes? Some are only taken on my iphone and are the larger size and others are on my SLR and are the small size.
I have a preset in Lightroom set to export photos with the long-edge at 900px in length. Whenever I use the resize feature, the photos that result have horrible noise and I don't know what to do about it. I can export the images at full size without any noise, then use Photoshop CS5 to resize the images and still have cleaner photos.
Here's an example.
The following export preset it set as such:
- Export as JPEG
- Quality = 100%
- DPI = 300
- Resize to 900px on long-edge
The first photo is exported via Lightroom 5 with the above settings, then directly uploaded to Imgur.
The second photo only has the Resize feature disabled in Lightroom. It was then resized to 900px on long-edge in Photoshop CS5 and the uploaded to Imgur.
The only difference between these two photos is which program was used to shrink them down to 900 x 600px.
Here is link to the referenced photos: [URL]
What do you think could be causing this? Since the only difference between the photos is which program resized them, all I can think is that it's an LR5 issue...
When I paste data from excel into autocad as 'autocad entities'(paste special) the newly created autocad table does not adhere to the pre-defined table style. Even if I right click on the table and remove overides the text sizes are wrong. I suspect it might be related to some variable, but I don't know which one.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have exported photos to my harddrive as jpegs that are less than 1mb but when I try to upload them for an assignment on the school website they are 25 mb??
View 4 Replies View RelatedWhen i apply a preset to a photo, then export it ... the file i end up with is significanatly smaller than my original file ? These same presets resulted in as large / or in most cases larger files sizes in previous versions of lightroom ...
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have a Visual Basic Script that creates pie charts using Adobe Illustrator along with an internally created app called Chart Generator. An xml file that contains a markup for a set of pie charts is imported into Chart generator and by using Illustrator it generates all of the pie charts and saves them as individual eps files.
It was recently discovered that not all of the pie slices are proportioning correctly. In some cases a slice that is 10% of the pie appears larger than a slice that is 13% of the pie. We can’t determine a pattern that might be causing this issue. We think that the problem is in the Visual Basic coding.
I am working on bringing files into Lightroom 4, most DNG files from a Canon 5D and DNG and TIFF files from a Nikon scanner. The problem I'm having is that after importing the files into the Folder in which they will all be for the catalogue, they are significantly smaller. For instance, a DNG file from a 6x9 film scan is 600MB in the original folder, then is 420MB in the new folder after being renamed and imported into Lightoom. Similarly, a 20MB DNG file from my Canon 5D is 8MB after importantion. Also, the backup of the original that is made upon importantion, remains at its larger size on my external drive. I do not believe that I have anything set in Lightroom to do this, the only setting I've touched in the import process are renaming the file, placing a backup, and adding tags. I am not doing anything in the development dialogue box. Is there a reason that these files are so much smaller? I'm worried because 30% decline in the case of scans is a lot of data, as if the 70% decline in my Canon 5D file.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI had read that when I convert to DNG in Lightroom (v4), the file sizes will drop by about 20% (I checked the check box for compression). I'm converting from a batch of 16-bit NEFs I created when scanning slides using the Nikon LS-5000 scanner. Those scans and files were created with Nikon Scan 4.0. After doing the conversion in Lightroom, the DNG file sizes are around 3MB-17MB. The original NEF files were about 135MB. Where in the world did all my data go? I'm concerned that the conversion to DNG threw away a ton of the original data. How is that much of a reduction possible? I'm hoping that there wasn't some catastrophic problem during the conversion, as I also checked the check box to delete the originals after the conversion is finished.
The image quality seems to be okay when looking at the DNG files in Lightroom.
So, I was photographing the moon tonight and shooting in my usual format - RAW. I took the photos into Lightroom and selected the one I liked best. After tweaking the contrast and clarity a little, I decided that I wanted to change around where the moon way positioned - in a way crop wouldn't allow. So I turned to "edit-in" and then selected Photoshop CS6 from the options. All was fine, Photoshop appeared and I began editing. I decided that I wanted to place my moon in a completely different location, so to do this I decided I'd select the area around the moon, copy it, paint over it, then paste the moon back onto a new layer and paste it exactly where I wanted it. I think this is why I'm having issues. All was well and it was time to save. I hit save...suddenly it was taken ages to save. I'm talking at least 2 minutes of save time. Realising that was odd, I decided to check out how big the new file was...nearly 1GB big as a TIFF.
I don't like saving my photos as anything other than TIFFs, but I don't have unlimited storage space.
Why was this file so huge after editing in Photoshop, how do I avoid it/what did I do wrong?
I'm using CorelDraw X5 to generate the eps file for my thesis, written in LaTex. When I draw a vertical arrow, an then export the draw in eps format, the arrowhead is pointing the wrong direction (left - right and not up-down), and this is always the case. If I open again the .cdr file, everything is correct.
I had the opportunity to try also CorelDraw X3, and the same behavior appears.
Have you ever experienced it? It is actually quite annoying because I have to fix all the eps images containing vertical arrows with ink scape, but it is time consuming.
I just recently started having an issue with lightroom 5.3, I import a raw file into lightroom then edit it in photoshop (through lightroom) then i save the file through photoshop and it appears next to the original file in lightroom. When I export the edited image it also exports the original unedited file as well? how to change this? Its very annoying having the original copy of the file exported as well.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI'm using LR4.1 on OSX 10.6.8. I convert my NEFs to DNGs at import, do my edits in LR. Most of the time when I want to create output it's for screen use. I use "Export" and produce JPGs.
But when I'm preparing files for printing at the lab, I use the Print module, and Print to File, because I like to create a JPG where the image size is smaller than the paper size, for framing purposes. For example, I use the Print module to output a JPG where the "cell size" is 11x14 but the "custom file dimensions" are 12x18, then I have the lab use 12x18 paper, leaving me a white border on my print that makes it easier to mat and frame.
Two questions, really.
1. Does LR do anything differently as it creates a JPG, depending on whether you use Export or "Print to File"? I'm assuming not, but just wondering.
2. Is there a way to do what I want to do -- create a JPG where the picture is one size but the paper size is larger -- through the Export dialogue (like ideally, through an export preset) or do I indeed have to go through the Print module to do this?
No emergency here, my method is working for me. (Though using an export preset to do what I'm doing, rather than having to go through the Print module, would be a little quicker, I suppose.)
I recently upgraded to lightroom 4 and I am having issues exporting my photos into a jpeg file. Lightroom is decreasing the size of my photo significantly, make them only about an 8 x 10 size and some as little as 3x5. I have tried everything I can think of, and it works as a tiff file, but for some reason it shrinks the picture on jpeg.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am new to Lightroom 4 and are having some problems exporting certain file dimensions. I have taken some pictures for a friend who wants to use them on her website. When importing the photos I converted them to dng. I have exported different file dimensions such as 320x240 and 640x480 without any problems. Now she asks for 950 x 340. I can enter the dimensions and export it, but when I check the dimensions on the exported photos I get e.g. 513x340.
View 4 Replies View RelatedWhen exporting DNG files as JPG the file icon doesn't show a complete picture. Perhaps 2 out of 25 files will be affected.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI have Lightroom 3 and using Windows 7.
I have a watermark created that I use when I export images using "File > Export with Preset". The watermark is rendered when I export to a TIFF or PSD file. It is not rendered when I export to a JPG file. How I can have a Watermark added to an exported JPG file?
At one time I was able to export a file's original file name in the "Raw Data" area of the metadata. I seem to have lost that ability in LR 4. I find this useful when a client renames a file and then wants me to find the original. I would open the file in Photoshop (or even a word processor) and the original name would be in the Raw Data area in File Info.
When LR 4 imports the file the first time, it apparently still creates the xmp file with the file name at the end of <rdf:Description rdf:about="" field and it looks like: crs:RawFileName="_DSC6501.NEF">
At one time Lightroom exported that info. But now I seem to have lost that file name info, even with "Export All Metadata" selected.
This is how it would look in Photoshop's File Info:
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/">
<crs:RawFileName>DSC_8466.NEF</crs:RawFileName>
[Code]....
When I attempt to export a group of approximately 50 photos from LR4, a window opens at the end of the process saying "The file could not be written" along with a list of approximately 10-15 NEF file names. I have never had a problem exporting before, but I recently started storing my LR catalog and files on an external USB 3.0 drive.
Here are the details:LR4 with latest updatesWin 7 with latest updatesLR catalog and photo files stored on external USB 3.0 G: driveTrying to export to a folder on my desktop on C: drive (46GB free out of 134GB, solid state drive)LR files are NEF, exported files are JPGI've tried to export to the same group of photos multiple times with different names and different output file sizes (8MB, 5MB, 2MB). Each time the list of failures is different.Some of the thumbnails which appear in Windows Explorer are corrupted (part of the thumbnail is gray)When I try to export the same group of photos to the external USB 3.0, it works perfectly!
Here is an example of one of the LR log files:
The file could not be written. (17)
G:2013Stratton and Colorado20132013-06-23\_D7K1915.NEF
G:2013Stratton and Colorado20132013-06-23\_D7K1918.NEF
G:2013Stratton and Colorado20132013-06-23\_D7K1919.NEF
G:2013Stratton and Colorado20132013-06-23\_D7K1939.NEF
G:2013Stratton and Colorado20132013-06-23\_D7K1948.NEF
[code].....
I've recently encounterd a problem while trying to export images out of Lightroom 4. I keep getting an error messge "File canot be written." This is happening whether I'm exporting a Jpeg or a raw file. Cannot figure what has happend but it's doing it with old and new files, so it's not an issue of a corrupted file.
View 1 Replies View RelatedExporting collections to external file only allows export as a jpeg and Not the original file types?
View 5 Replies View RelatedIn LR3, when exporting a raw file as a jpeg the only choices given at the top of the dialog box are Hard Drive and CD. Is there a way to export directly to a thumb drive or external HD without exporting to the HD then copying the file (s) over?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI imported some pictures into LIghtroom 5 with the SAME jpg numbers as a prior import. The first import consisted of pictures from Trip 1 folder on my hard drive, the second import was from Trip 2 folder on hard drive. I see the Trip 1 and Trip 2 folders in LIghtroom 5, but am experiencing problems with emailing and exporting pictures, getting messages such as "Missing file" or "Export does not show up. Were there problems with the import?
View 1 Replies View RelatedOur 18MB 14-bit Canon camera produces RAW images (converted to uncompressed DNG) that are about 22MB. On a Win7-64bit CS6 workstation, the PSD file that is created from the DNGs has the following sizes (single layer, no masks/paths, maximum compatibility):
16 bit, DNG as smart object: 207MB (10x of the DNG)16 bit, DNG as rasterized layer: 187MB (8.5x of the DNG)8-bit (less information than the DNG), DNG as smart object: 115MB (5.2x of DNG)8-bit (less information than the DNG), DNG as rasterized layer: 95MB (4.3x of DNG)
a blank 8-bit image with a white background layer saves as 818KB, adding a few scribbles with the brush tool saves the file at about 30MB.
I would like to use pics from my digital camera on the web.How can I reduce file sizes for use on the web.Everyone seems to have a maximum file size when uploading.
View 3 Replies View RelatedThis question may seem obvious to some of you but I'd like to understand this issue. I've been taking digital photos in Raw format for use in photoshop, I'd eventually like to send them in to a stock photography site and the one I'm thinking of applying to, Alamy, demands file sizes of 48MB+ per photo in TIFF. I've been uploading them from my camera onto my hard drive and they end up just short of this required file size, around 46MB. Unfortunately a 1GB flash card full of Raw images, when converted to this size, eats up a lot of memory. I don't think I can use all the images for stock photography anyway so I started looking at how I can affect file sizes under "Image"-"Image size" so I can clear up some memory and I've noticed I can play around with the image size if I change the resolution. Currently the 46MB photos are at a resolution of 2000, if I change them to 300, the resulting file size is just over 1MB, which is great because the ones I can't use, I can still store at a reduced size and clear some space on the old hard drive. But I've noticed I can take the same converted 1MB image, change the resolution to 3000 and end up with a 105MB image. OK "So what's your problem?" you might ask. Well, where's all this extra resolution coming from? I can make it go up and down as I please and I have no idea how this is even possible. Shouldn't reducing resolution from 46MB to 1MB forever reduce the quality of the image? How is it possible to go back to the original size or even increase it?
View 5 Replies View RelatedGif 64 dittered default CS2=2.63KB CS3=4.83KB
JPG CS2Low=1.42KB CS3=4.03KB
JPG CS2Medium=1.90KB CS3=4.51KB
JPG CS2High=3.38KB CS3=5.99KB
Is there any solution besides keep using CS2 for web?
I've received several scanned images from another party in .jpg format. The file sizes of some run about 100k and others about 300k.
When I looked at the image properties they were almost the same for each of them. All of them had a resolution of 96x96 and each having around 40,000 pixels (roughly 500X800 pixel images). The print sizes were all about 5.5x8.5 inches.
Why would .jpg images with similar pixel resolution and number have such different file sizes?
I work with 2 different Mac Pro towers. The one at my home has Photoshop cs4 and the one at my studio has Photoshop cs6. The other day I noticed that Finder on my studio computer shows the file size to be twice as big as the finder on my home computer. The pixel dimension size doesn't change, just the file size. It shows up that way after I save it on my studio computer. If I take that file home and resave it on that computer then the Finder shows the smaller file size again. I guess the questions I have are: Is the file size is actually increasing and if so, what could be causing that to happen? Photoshop shows the files to be the same size, but in the Finder window is where I see the difference.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am using meta data "description" menu to add meta data to web images.The basics:title
description
keywords
copyright
That is about it for my application....so far and like I say it is just for web images at this point. At any rate to me surprise I did not realize how much the meta data added to file size.I had assumed it was minimal but in fact that is not the case. Meta data ends up adding a lot.
Question:
So is there a way in Photoshop to see what the final file size will be with the meta data included as I have found, so far, is the image itself file size when I view the
"Saving for Web & Devices" menu screen.Also tried the "Info" menu and neither indicate the meta data additions into an images file size.
One of the reasons is, of course, that I would like to get as many keywords in there as possible, as an example lets say this was the logo or site's header and they have a lot of different products.
The more keywords the better the SEO results will be. I am sure this statement in itself is disputable but as of now 5/2013 it appears that way as far as SE's are concerned.Tested this extensively and the result were remarkable, but that is another story.
