How do I increase size of photos to over 900kb?

MB Lacey

Someone liked my photos and asked if I'd email some of them for possible publication.
They asked that the size of the photos should be no smaller than 900kb.
Unfortunately I've just checked and my photos range from 750kb to 860kb.

I have a Nikon DSLR D40.
How do I increase the size of photos to be over 900kb for the future?
And I suppose there's no possible way of increasing size of these pics now after they've been shot?

I'm pretty disappointed they can't be used because of their size.

Thanks.

dazftw

Size shouldnt matter that much? Whats the resolution of the image?

You need to change the jpeg settings in the camera to the highest it can go! I think on the D40 its something like "JPEG Fine"!

PopeBuckfastXVI

That's a bit silly, jpegs of the same resolution can vary in size greatly due to compression of large areas of the same colour.

Tell her the resolution (x pixels by y pixels) and see what she says.

Out of a d40 I'd expect it to be something like 3500 x 2000 or something, which should be plenty for most purposes.

MB Lacey

hey daz, apparently the size does matter.

I wouldn't know how to see what Res the image is - I right clicked for info but it doesn't give the megapixel count (that I can see).

I went into my settings and you're right on a D40 you can change it to 'jpeg fine' (which it was already set to).

There's also a size setting there so I changed it to medium (from small), so I guess there's my solution.

I'm curious why some images taken of roughly the same thing, take minutes of each other have varying image sizes?
Do you know?

MB Lacey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's a bit silly, jpegs of the same resolution can vary in size greatly due to compression of large areas of the same colour.

Tell her the resolution (x pixels by y pixels) and see what she says.

Out of a d40 I'd expect it to be something like 3500 x 2000 or something, which should be plenty for most purposes.

Do you know where I'd get the res info from?
Is that the same as dimensions? (don't laugh, we all have to learn!)


I can view my pics on the inbuilt imac photo editor or lightroom.

Ghost Train

irfanview is a nice image viewer that will give you all the details. You can always resave the files at a higher jpeg quality setting to give you a larger size if thats what they want... not that it will do anything for the quality

Xiney

MB Lacey wrote: »

I wouldn't know how to see what Res the image is - I right clicked for info but it doesn't give the megapixel count (that I can see).

resolution, for the intents of printing, is how many pixels wide and tall an image is. That will be somewhere in the details.

the size of the image doesn't actually matter, but it is highly unlikely to get an image with adequate resolution for printing to be under 1mb (which is slightly more than 900kb)

For example, the average jpeg as shot coming out of my camera at 3888 x 2592 is 2 - 5 mb

Thecageyone

Getty Images are real picky about image size. They require you to have an original of any image put forward of at least 3mb file size. That's a bit silly, as right off the cam at highest settings a Jpeg is often under 3mb. RAW files will of course be much larger, but once processed they save back to under 3mb jpegs.

Under 1mb though, I can understand how that would be a problem if they plan to blow your images up and/or print them large. That is a little small.

ihastakephoto

considering there are a number of factors which are taken into consideration, the 900kb is probably a good rule of thumb for people, as the first hurdle to overcome, it suggests a reasonable image size to begin with. all other things being equal.

cynically and tongue in cheek.....import the image into PS, resample it to be 600dpi and then resize it to your desired filesize )

MB Lacey

Xiney wrote: »

resolution, for the intents of printing, is how many pixels wide and tall an image is. That will be somewhere in the details.

the size of the image doesn't actually matter, but it is highly unlikely to get an image with adequate resolution for printing to be under 1mb (which is slightly more than 900kb)

For example, the average jpeg as shot coming out of my camera at 3888 x 2592 is 2 - 5 mb

thanks, so when you say the res is how tall and wide the image is that is also known as dimensions?

Yeah she initially said 1mb but then said 900kb would do.

(The other settings on my D40 are Medium 2,256x1,496:3.3MP and Large 3,008x2,000:6MP)

I usually shoot in small because they images are easier to email and I post them on a blog.

I've been checking my camera and the 'small' setting says 1,504x1,000:1.5MP - so then if I was taking photos on small - why are some of my photos as low as 750kb?

melekalikimaka

MB Lacey wrote: »

thanks, so when you say the res is how tall and wide the image is that is also known as dimensions?

Yeah she initially said 1mb but then said 900kb would do.

(The other settings on my D40 are Medium 2,256x1,496:3.3MP and Large 3,008x2,000:6MP)

I usually shoot in small because they images are easier to email and I post them on a blog.

I've been checking my camera and the 'small' setting says 1,504x1,000:1.5MP - so then if I was taking photos on small - why are some of my photos as low as 750kb?

1.5mp is extremely low quality...

PopeBuckfastXVI

MB Lacey wrote: »

thanks, so when you say the res is how tall and wide the image is that is also known as dimensions?

Yeah she initially said 1mb but then said 900kb would do.

(The other settings on my D40 are Medium 2,256x1,496:3.3MP and Large 3,008x2,000:6MP)

I usually shoot in small because they images are easier to email and I post them on a blog.

I've been checking my camera and the 'small' setting says 1,504x1,000:1.5MP - so then if I was taking photos on small - why are some of my photos as low as 750kb?

That's because MP doesn't equal MB, megapixels is the amount of pixels, horizontal x verticla, MB is the file size.

The lesson here is to shoot at your largest size and finest quality, because you can resize downwards, and reduce quality later, but not the other way round.

It'd be better again if you learnt how to shoot in RAW (.NEF) on the Nikon. When you took the picture on 'small' you essentially told the camera to take the picture, resize it downwards, and delete the original. I'm afraid you'll never get back the quality and image data that you discarded when you took it. A harsh lesson, but one that's good to learn so you don't make the same mistake again.

Kintarō Hattori

MB Lacey wrote: »

I usually shoot in small because they images are easier to email and I post them on a blog.

I've been checking my camera and the 'small' setting says 1,504x1,000:1.5MP - so then if I was taking photos on small - why are some of my photos as low as 750kb?

You are far better off taking your photos at a higher quality and then sizing them down if needed. As has been mentioned if your images need to be blown up for a poster or something then the quality won't be there and a potential customer lost.

Start taking them in a higher quality. Resizing them is easier and we can tell you how to do that here.

hbr

MB Lacey wrote: »

Someone liked my photos and asked if I'd email some of them for possible publication.
They asked that the size of the photos should be no smaller than 900kb.
Unfortunately I've just checked and my photos range from 750kb to 860kb.

If the images are sent as JPEG files, it is a bit daft to judge quality from
file size. The amount of JPEG compression will vary depending on the
content of the image. A clear blue sky will probably be a very small file,
an image with lots of detail like a forest will be much bigger.

First of all, they probably mean 900kB and not 900kb (kilobytes rather than kilobits)
I would expect a typical 6Mp JPEG file from the D40 to be more than 900kB.
Make sure your camera is set for biggest size and best quality.

Is it possible that your e-mail software is scaling down the size of
images to make them more e-mail friendly? I have heard than some
mail clients do this.

I expect the Nikon can save files in raw format. If so you could
convert them from raw to a non-lossy format like TIFF before
you send them for publication. This would give the best possible
quality.

MB Lacey

Thanks very much for all your speedy and informative replies.
I often post questions here for exactly this kind of help.
There is a RAW option on the Nikon D40 - so I guess thats the way forward - and shooting in the bigger size.

Thanks again for all your help.

It was to include some of my pics in a biodiversity supplement in a newspaper next wknd - so I'm disappointed my images won't be used - but there you go.

I'll know for next time!

PopeBuckfastXVI

MB Lacey wrote: »

Thanks very much for all your speedy and informative replies.
I often post questions here for exactly this kind of help.
There is a RAW option on the Nikon D40 - so I guess thats the way forward - and shooting in the bigger size.

Thanks again for all your help.

It was to include some of my pics in a biodiversity supplement in a newspaper next wknd - so I'm disappointed my images won't be used - but there you go.

I'll know for next time!

look into upsizing software, you might be lucky and get something usable

ihastakephoto

always RAW, always as big as you can, memory cards are relatively cheap : )