Why do my photo file size increases upon export?!?!

Michael,

If you haven't made adjustments to your masters, you should be able to export your pictures with IPTC data included, and still have the exact same photo in the exported file.

In the "Export Masters" dialog, make sure "Metadata" is set to "Include IPTC", and then export as you had previously.

nathan

The 'embed metadata' option when exporting Masters is new in version 2, so it won't be there in 1.5.

Ian

What are your DPI settings on export vs the original. For printing purposes, I typically export at 250 dpi for prints and webposting. But sometimes I export at 300 DPI which results in larger files. This applies to JPEGs and you have not said what file structure your masters are (RAW, TIFF, JPEG or ?)

How much difference is there in file size. The only other observation I have made is if I export from CS2 or 3 at a JPEG of 12, and do the same thing with Aperture, my recollection is the files sizes are not the same. I just retested that observation by opening a TIFF file in Aperture, by exporting an image at setting 12 @300DPI from Aperture and it was 8.4MB, whereas the same export from CS3 resulted in a file size of 4.9. Everything else seems the same. The only thing that makes sense is the JPEG algorithms are not identical. Not sure whether I can which is 'better'

actually, if exporting in 72 dpi or 300 dpi does not change the file size, if your image is kept at its original (pixel) size. lets say your image is 4000 x 3000 pixel in 72 dpi, it will still be the same 4x3k in 300 dpi. the difference is the "output" size in print and the corresponding quality. at 72 dpi it prints larger however in lower quality and smaller but better quality in 300 dpi. the pixels (and file size) remain unchanged.

what influences the file size are of course file type, bit depth and compression rate. psd and tif at 16 bit uncompressed can be several times the file size of the original raw file. this of course changes dramatically once you up or downscale the actual pixels of your original images.

as for export settings: the industry standard for print is 300 dpi adobe rgb, and 72 dpi srgb for the web. agreed, some web-browsers work with 96 dpi today, however 72 for web and email is still the safest and most compatible bet.

I noticed that in the export presets the "image Quality" slider by default is not set to the highest.
If I change it the exported file I tried was a bit over twice the size.
I bit confused as the original size exported was somewhat smaller.
Hope that make sense.
Trying to understand just what it is I actually would need to export for the best print quality.

chuck,
it all depends on 2 factors. a - your original file (pixel dimensions, format, compression level, color and bit depth) and the exported file (pixel dimensions, format, compression level, color and bit depth).

just as an example - if you take a quite strongly compressed jpg (lets say at 5) and export it to be a less compressed jpg (10 to 12), the file size in kb will be larger, while maintaining the same amount of pixels. what has changed is the way the information are stored within the jpg +(to say it very simplified and without going into details about compression and possible loss of data etc)+.

if you'd take a high-res 16-bit tif and export it (again at exact same pixel dimensions) as jpg, you'd get a much smaller file, still the same pixels (at least the amount of pixels, however perhaps "lower quality" pixels, depending on compression level, original image, noise, tonality etc etc).

long (technical) story short: there is no real "one answer fits all" because it heavily depends on your original image. as a rule of thumb however, print files should be in 300 dpi and images for the web in 72.

in terms of color and bit depth it now depends who you're sending the files to. if you send them to your client, use 8 bit sRGB. if you send it to a graphic designer, i'd send him 16-bit tif files in adobe rgb. all of this makes no sense if your original image was a heavily compressed 8 bit sRGB jpg of course.

Thanks for the reply.
Compression, depression, recession.
Where in the world did I put my Brownie Hawkeye?
Brings to mind the old saying "life's complicated, then you die".
At least I think that's the saying.

Thanks again.

I don't know. If I take the exact same image and export it as a JPEG from CS3 and from Aperture I get different file sizes. Number of pixels, DPI, bit depth are all the same. Also export is done at the highest quality setting for the two different programs (12).

My professional print shop asks that I provide them the files at 250 DPI, not 300. Unless I am doing a very large print, I provide it at 250. Steven

if your printshop asks for 250 dpi files and the result is what you're after - perfect, no reason to change. however if you send files to pre-press, to graphic designers or unknown printers, i'd always send them in 300 dpi.

as for different sizes from different applications: very true. this has to do with the fact that adobe uses different algorithms to compress files than apple.

bottom line for me is, do i get the result i want (printed on paper, or even better: happy client paid my invoice and books me again). a few kb more or less don't really matter...

well i agree about happy paying client as the decider!! I always thought JPEG was a standard compression algorithm, but I think there must be some significant variations on the theme. Steven