Export - Jpeg version reduced resolution
Good morning.
When I export a Nikon RAW file that has been edited changing the Camera Profile (for example from ON1 standard to Camera Landscape), the resulting JPEG has a much lower resolution.
Usually, with a RAW file of around 27mb / 6016x4016 @ 300 ppi, the JPEG is around 12mb with same dimensions and 72 ppi.
When I change the Camera Profile, the resulting JPEG is around 1mb / 1895x1265 @ 72 ppi.
Going back to the ON1 Camera profile and exporting again does not change the result.
Selecting the correct size and resolution before export give me a larger JPEG photo with horrible quality.
Now I have a bunch of RAW photos that I cannot export anymore because I am not able to get decent JPEG.
Any idea of why it is happening?
Thank you,
Alessandro
-
On Export, make sure the JPG Quality is set to 100%. Also make sure that any panels in Export that you're not using are turned off, especially the Resize panel which could be reducing the photo size if you have wrong settings in there.
If this doesn't help, you'll need to post more accurate details of what you're doing to help us pinpoint the problem.
0 -
Hi,
Thank you for replying.
The only panels I use are FIle Type with Quality always at 100 and Adobe RGB (1998), Sharpening for Screen and Destination.
As I said before, during the same export session the photos that have the Camera Profile untouched are exported without problems at the correct quality and resolution, while the photos where I changed the Camera Profile are exported at a ridiculous resolution.
All my folders are catalogued
I have uploaded on a Google Drive shared folder two samples in case you want to try to export the RAW files yourself:
"20190426_022.nef" has been edited but I did not touch the Camera Profile
"20190426_022.jpg" is the resulting JPEG and it is good
"20190426_023.nef" has been edited and I have changed the Camera Profile to "Camera Landscape" and then back to "ON1 standard".
"20190426_023.jpg" is the resulting JPEG and has a lower resolution
Here is the Drive link:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Hci0-uDtCoypI0YetLIYZ15uRe6pR5DC
0 -
I did some more tests and it seems that the problem occurs when you export the same photo more than once.
When you change the Camera Profile, the first time you export the photo is ok, if for any reason you export it again overwriting the previous one, you obtain an almost unusable jpeg.
At least this is what it seems to me after trying with different photos.
0 -
Are you doing your exports from the browser or while in edit mode?
0 -
I'm not seeing any problems with your files Alessandro. I opened the 022.NEF just to look at its settings, made no changes, and returned to the browser then exported. Next I went back to develop and set the Camera Profile to Landscape, returned to browse, and exported once again. I left all export settings at default except to rename the exported files so I could identify which was which. Other than the change from standard to landscape they look identical. The image dimensions are exactly the same. The standard setting created an 11.0 MB jpeg and the landscape setting an 11.5MB file.
This is with the 2019.5.1 version released earlier today.
0 -
I tried from both modules and the result was the same.
0 -
Thank you very much for testing.
May I please ask you to make sure you are changing the profile to Camera Landscape, not ON1 Landscape. Can you please change the profile, export the photo, delete the jpeg and export it again?
Thank you0 -
I'm sorry but I'm still not seeing any problems here. The file sizes were much more respectable at 3.5MB & 3.1MB but as far as image quality goes I can't tell the difference.
- Exported the original image after using Reset All.
- Exported after changing to Camera Landscape.
- Manually changed back to Standard then exported.
I exported with all panels turned off except Sharpening, set to Screen, & File Type, set to jpeg 100% Adobe RGB and of course Location.
Maybe my eyes aren't as sharp as yours? ;) Also, this is on a Mac, I don't have a Windows system to test with. Maybe Rick can give it a try for you.
Are you running today's 2019.5.1 release?
0 -
I don't have access to camera profiles, not sure if it would help if I tried it.
Alessandro first mentioned that the file sizes were quite different...
Usually, with a RAW file of around 27mb / 6016x4016 @ 300 ppi, the JPEG is around 12mb with same dimensions and 72 ppi.
When I change the Camera Profile, the resulting JPEG is around 1mb / 1895x1265 @ 72 ppi.
Brian, if you're struggling to see a difference in the photos, then I think the two of you are looking for different things.
Edited: Duh, if I use Alessandros files, i will have access to the profiles! Hang on...
0 -
Thanks, Rick. I did see the original file exported at 11.5 MB while the later versions were around 3MB. I never expected to see an 11MB jpeg and thought the smaller versions were more in line with my expectations.
Alessandro, you should report this to support. Let's see what they have to say about it.
0 -
Ok, so I tried Alessandro's files as he described 4 posts up using Camera Landscape. I ended up with 2 jpgs both 11.8mb and they look the same to me.
BTW, NEF takes way longer to export than my ORF files.
I agree with Brian, Alessandro if you can document the problem and produce exports to illustrate it, you should send that to On1.
0 -
Thank you both of you.
I have downloaded the last patch and tried again with several different photos.
Unfortunately, the result is always the same.
With Camera profile untouched, I obtain JPEG at the same original resolution of 6016x4016, approx. 11Mb
With Camera profile changed, I obtain JPEG at 1895x1265, approx. 1Mb.
I don't understand why the resize happens.
I will contact the support.
0 -
I must have been more tired than I realized yesterday. :) Trying it again this morning I'm seeing what you've reported Alessandro. Support definitely needs to know about it.
0 -
I just tested with my .CR2 files and see the same thing
Just change the camera profile and get a significanlty reduced image size when exported as Jpg. For this to happen to me all I have to do is change the camera profile and the jpg size is greatly reduced even on the first import ( tested on two similar images where I would expect about the same image size. )Tested multiple times. I tried deleting the sidecar file to see if it woud reset the image and it will not.
Seems like it is best to leave camera profile alone for now.
I will submit a support ticket as well.
0 -
Just wanted to add I tested to see if this is something that just impacted jpgs - the answer is no impacts images exported as tiff as well.
0 -
Yes definitely we need to report this.
However, doing some other test it seems that it happens not only with the camera profile.
It happened also when exporting some photos edited as black and white.
The problem is that it happened only for some of them, not all. So for now I am not able to replicate it.0 -
I tried it with a CRW file and there was no problem. When I used a CR2 it happened. I'm going to report it too.
0 -
I found a variable causing the problem. Using Sharpening set to Screen gives the reduced resolution files. Turning Sharpening off or setting it to Progressive (I didn't test all the options) resulted in a properly sized image.
0 -
Amazing Detail Finder, & Fix Focus also reduce the resolution. All the rest work correctly.
0 -
Brian, good catch!
I just tested and see the same thing.
Is there a way to update our support tickets to include this info?
0 -
Brian and you still do not see the issue at all using CRW files?
0 -
Not until you hear from a support tech and can reply to their email. I've passed it along to the engineers who have been monitoring this thread.
0 -
I did not test all possibilities but with Screen sharpening it isn't happening. Maybe it has something to do with the file size? My CRW files are from a 10D and are only 3072x2048 px. I will pass that along too.
0 -
Brian, looks like the 10D is a tier 2 camera? Could it be the raw engine used for tier 2 does not cause the problem and the tier 1 engine does? ( I'm beeting money that's the difference )
0 -
That could very well be. I wasn't aware the 10D was a tier 2 camera. :( I guess because of its age?
0 -
Ooops my Bad 10D is a tier one. Good thing you didn't take me up on my bet.
I clicked a link that I thought took me to tier 2 camers but it was not.
0 -
I was wondering about that. It didn't make sense that a pro camera would only be tier 2. Good to know, thanks, David. I'm feeling better now about the multitudes of old images I've yet to process. :)
0 -
Brian - I don't have the same result as you. After changing camera profile if I have sharpening turned on regardless of what it is set to I get reduced resolution.
0 -
I got a response from the engineers saying it seems to affect images over 4000px on the long edge. They've got it in their bug list now.
0 -
Thanks Brian!
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments