Surprising Increase in KB Size

[BuckSkin]

This probably happens to my photos hundreds of times every day; however, I had seldom really noticed just how dramatic things could be.

I had been looking and finally found a photo I had been searching for from 1972 and downloaded the jpeg.

It was flat and hazy and dull and the highlights were almost blown.

I ran it through DxO Photolab II Elite, using my usual(always) recipe and then pulled back the highlights and lightened the shadows, saving as a jpeg.

Side-by-side, both carrying the exact same metadata, the faded bleached-out original is 608-KB

The much improved DxO version is at an almost eight-times increase of 4,356-KB


Just worrying this around in my mind before I clicked Create Thread, I think I will use FastStone to take a screenshot of the improved version and see just how many KB that will have.

[pontiac1940]

Feb 28, 2024 7:41:37 GMT BuckSkin said:

The much improved DxO version is at an almost eight-times increase of 4,356-KB

I do not own or know about DxO. Is the new image still a jpeg? (or PNG? PSD? Or? ) Was the pixel size increased? 

[BuckSkin]

Feb 28, 2024 17:52:03 GMT pontiac1940 said:

Feb 28, 2024 7:41:37 GMT BuckSkin said:

The much improved DxO version is at an almost eight-times increase of 4,356-KB

I do not own or know about DxO. Is the new image still a jpeg? (or PNG? PSD? Or? ) Was the pixel size increased? 

All factors are the same except for the one being all faded and lack-luster and the DxO version looking pretty good; same pixel dimensions, both are jpegs, no layers or anything, exact same metadata as to begin with it was a clean slate and I added he same details to both versions together.

My screenshot comparison idea went out the window as the dimensions of this particular photo exceed the available screen size.

[Andy]

Is DxO saving it differently (Progressive vs Optimized)?

[BuckSkin]

Feb 28, 2024 23:38:45 GMT Andy said:

(Progressive vs Optimized)

I have no idea what either term means in regards to photos.

After noticing this huge growth, I am going to pay closer attention to see if it is only the produce of DxO, or just the way it is with all manipulated/improved photos regardless of program.

[Andy]

I've no idea how DxO behaves, but if you do a Save As in Photoshop Elements and select JPG, you have options for "Baseline (Standard)", "Baseline Optimized", and "Progressive". You can go to the link below to get a more detailed explanation, but there is a difference in file size from what I can read. It probably doesn't explain the difference you are seeing, but it is one thing to check.

www.thewebmaster.com/progressive-jpegs/

[BuckSkin]

Feb 29, 2024 0:27:34 GMT Andy said:

I've no idea how DxO behaves, but if you do a Save As in Photoshop Elements and select JPG, you have options for "Baseline (Standard)", "Baseline Optimized", and "Progressive". You can go to the link below to get a more detailed explanation, but there is a difference in file size from what I can read. It probably doesn't explain the difference you are seeing, but it is one thing to check.

www.thewebmaster.com/progressive-jpegs/

Thanks; I will check it out.

Regardless of the program, I always save at the highest quality possible; other that save quality, most of my programs don't offer any other options.

The next time I have the Save box open in DxO, I will investigate to see if there are any options other than quality.