file sizes getting larger?

It seems lately the file size of my photos are, on average, getting larger. I have not change the quality or size selections. Is it just what I am photographing or is there something else I could have inadvertently changed? I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT.

Photos with more details in them will have a larger file size. Photos with fewer details (for instance a photo with a lot of clear blue sky) will have a smaller file size.

But hard drive space is getting cheaper... so it all works out.

Files captured at high ISO will also be larger as noise is seen as additional detail.

Files will get larger, and take up more space, and also take longer to process.
As far as files getting larger, they shouldn't change by that much. How much of a difference are we talking about ?
Sure hard drives are getting bigger, just think of how much you'll lose as well.
I'm not buying into the more Mp the better image, at least not for now. We don't need more MP we need better quality ones.Make better use of what we have instaed of adding on.
Eventually newer technology will take care of this, with better sensors, but for now everyone does the keeping up with more is better.
Besides unless your printing large size prints, I think a lot of us need to ask ourselves If we really need those gigantic file sizes. I know I don't.

I have a 5 mp camera. I can't imaging needing a larger resolution for what I do.

The majority of my photos at first were under 2 Mb. Now it appears most of them are between 2 - 3 MB with some just over 3 Mb all shot at medium fine quality. I am just trying to figure out what changed. Or what I changed with the camera. I will compare the ISO setting for the early photos compared to recent ones with higher file size.

Ive noticed my file sizes change from lens to lens and like others have said from shot to shot depending on detail. I shoot RAW large so my file sizes are usually from 10-20 MB's. I really wouldnt want them any bigger than that. Does changing the file size change image quality or just the physical size of the picture?

Try shooting raw. 20-22 mb per picture. Lol.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16088078
I have a 5 mp camera. I can't imaging needing a larger resolution for what I do.

You obviously don't crop much. and display/print at fairly small sizes.

chzuck wrote in post #16088732
The majority of my photos at first were under 2 Mb. Now it appears most of them are between 2 - 3 MB with some just over 3 Mb all shot at medium fine quality. I am just trying to figure out what changed. Or what I changed with the camera. I will compare the ISO setting for the early photos compared to recent ones with higher file size.

Unless you have a very old sensor or are just putting them on facebook or sharing online why are you creating such low resolution images?

I rarely print any of the photos. I am not looking to make posters. I mostly shoot photos of the grand kids, old equipment at shows, and some wildlife. I think my Canon is only 8 megapixels.

It depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting a scene that has a varied amount of detail and color; your file sizes should be about the normal range. If you are shooting at a high iso under dark lighting conditions with shadow details; your file sizes will be slightly larger than before.

In general though, your camera shouldn't be outputting "larger" file sizes over time. It depends on what you shoot and how much processing power the camera has to do for the final image.

mwsilver wrote in post #16088964
You obviously don't crop much. and display/print at fairly small sizes.

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/

But you're right, I try not to crop much and print 12*18 or less most of the time.

Well, files do increase in size the more layers you add to it. For example, take an already large TIFF image and run a couple of NIK's effects. Now look at the size of the photo