Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Image file size in Mb

Boris Tomsic
  • Edited

Please show the image file size in Mb somewhere, but would suggest to add it to the other info below the Viewer and in the the Metadata tab with the Dimensions.
The dimensions in pixels is shown, but the Mb would also be very useful so you know what you're working with.
Cameras may have an number of quality levels you can select for raw and jpegs, but there's no other info in the metadata tells you which one you've used.

9

Comments

5 comments

Date Votes
  • Michael Lee

    This will definitely be helpful. I am surprised there is no info on file size :)

    0
  • Spike

    I can't believe this isn't displayed somewhere. Was in my first version of Photoshop, 2.5...

     

    0
  • PIRAN

    Agreed. Other RAW renderers more helpfully show this file size on disk information (eg SilkyPIX). Recommend single image file size on disk emplacement to the right of the information line area so as to show <colour tag :: ratings :: MB>.

    The (Catalog) Library tab offers a Show Info option which more helpfully even tots up the aggregate of ALL the pictures in the current import. When displaying in 'G' mode (all thumbs) this aggregate is helpful. Toggling 'G' mode (single image) then that unchanging aggregate value is rather less helpful or even obvious, particularly that single image's bottom status line only shows for instance <ISO 32 1/370s f/2.8 9 mm    {file name}   colour tag :: star rating} :: but not the single image's file size on disk MB>. Plenty of space to the right for it C1:-)

    0
  • Peter Wijn

    Please, don't compare Capture One to uhm, Silly Pigs... ;)
    I guess it could be considdered fine software, but - well, when I tested it - it is not anywhere near the league of COP.

    (Perhaps, this notion even makes the point stronger on the desirability of the requested feature ;).)

     

    0
  • PIRAN

    Exactly... in agreement with your last line :-) C1 should be leading the pack. Image file size on disk is hardly rocket science.

    Silky isn't bad - comparison is a little chalk'n'cheese - I started RAW rendering with it but now firmly C1 (MAC & PC) as they didn't want to adopt my later cameras. Prefer C1 (all the luverrrly tools) but Silky was certainly a lot simpler to use more quickly.

    To get back on topic... C1 should option to show individual image file size on disk - well overdue.  

    0

Post is closed for comments.

Didn't find what you were looking for?

New post