Metadata all looked the same except for the file size. There were no differences in quality as they appeared on the screen (even when enlarged) nor when printing. The photo file sizes may have ranged from 400 kb up to 25 MB (like 400 kb, 900 kb, 1.1 MB, 9 MB, 25 MB). As an example I might have 5 copies of the same photo with the same obscure name but with a sequential number appended. I ended up with many copies of some photos. Many years ago I had a hard disk failure and used recovery programs (can’t remember which ones I used - I was in “panic mode” at the time) to recover my “lost” photos. One way to determine if compression, metadata, or both is the culprit may be to look at the average size of your photo files from that camera. As I understand it, compression will show up in the histogram. I also relied on the histogram feature in PhotoSweeper to help me tell if duplicate photos had meaningful differences. Perhaps one file size is obviously an outlier. But it’s not clear if has had the photos imported into any other digital asset management/photo preview software at some point. It is my understanding that Photos doesn’t compress photos on import. I also made multiple backups of my unsorted photos before I started culling them so that I could get images back if I had second thoughts about my decision.Ĭompression is certainly worth considering. And, as I said, the photos weren’t extremely important to me. no opening the file and then saving) or import them once into Photos. I also had not done anything to the photos except either copy the files (i.e. The difference in file size wasn’t +/- 2 MB, as it is in example, when I wrote off the difference to extra metadata.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |