optimum JPEG file size for X megapixel count?

Hi guys,

I'm trying to strike an optimal balance between file size and quality here. my current workflow is to convert my 5dc raw files (after editing) to JPEG, capped @ 5MB per image rather than using the quality adjustment in LR4.1.

What I want to ask is, what would be a decent file-size for my 5dc (12.8mp) files to be converted to? at 5mb per file, i don't see much loss of quality. tested smaller sizes before, but it varies on a per-image basis.

opinions?

You need to read this:
http://regex.info …room-goodies/jpeg-quality
It was written for LR3, but I've seen no indication that LR4 is any different in this respect. Although, as you will understand from the article, it depends on image content, the bottom line seems to be that 76 is optimum for most cases.

I was also going to link to Jeffrey Friedl's analysis, above.

As for limiting to a specific file size? That's a tough call. How long is a piece of string?

I don't think you can really give one specific number, since the amount of acceptable jpeg compression can vary based on the content of the photo. What do you shoot?

One interesting thing to take away from Friedl's analysis is that more complex images can often get by with a HIGHER jpeg compression, while relatively simple images - for instance, empty sky with a bit of a gradient - require less compression (i.e. a higher quality number) to minimize any "stepping" in tones across the gradient.

My opinion: Either adjust the quality and file size for each individual image upon export, based on the content of the image; or, just set it to 76 and forget it

tzalman wrote in post #15063810
You need to read this:
http://regex.info …room-goodies/jpeg-quality
It was written for LR3, but I've seen no indication that LR4 is any different in this respect. Although, as you will understand from the article, it depends on image content, the bottom line seems to be that 76 is optimum for most cases.

ahh i'm using his LR plugins for facebook.. haha.

saw this before and i recalled the reason why i didn't use it is because some of the filesizes came out so small (<2mb/image) that I can't believe there's minimal quality loss!

perhaps i should just stick to his advice!