If you have an image editing program that lets you save out .jpgs 'for the web' part of the process is trimming all the exif data, etc. to get the smallest size possible.

Photoshop, for example does this if you use 'save for web and devices'.

You can instead use the 'save as' command to save as a .jpg and the exif data will not be lost. The file size will be larger than the same .jpg saved 'for web and devices'.

It took me a while to figure out the difference so I thought I'd share. This does not address the OP's problem.

In my opinion you would be better to try shooting in RAW and JPEG Fine Large at the same time. I do this a lot. I also use JPEG fine large most of the time and on a D300 or D90 that will give you 6MB (approx.) file size. Experimenting some on the same on D7000 the JPEG fine large should give you a file size around 8MB. Shooting similar subjects on good natural light with all of these cameras and putting them on a sharp LED 55" HDTV the JPEG fine large look as good as anything. The worst results I have personally seen were when I shot RAW only and tried to convert. I use Aperature 3 and Photoshop some but prefer to get my exposure as close to right on as possible.

I'm your Huckleberry joelia

Yes... I think TaeTeJared knew what I meant too.

I think others cover it, but yeah RAW is all the info. When you convert to jpeg you are just removing all that extra RAW info and the size goes down. You will be OK with the size if you are exporting at best quality. Just check the pixels/actual picture size when you export. If you want just shoot a RAW+jpeg fine and convert the RAW then compare them...they should be similar in size (although I bet the converted from RAW file will be slightly larger).

Thank you for all the help!

lol thats what i assumed joelia meant. Just got his file types crossed up.

Raw & Tiff files will always be larger than jpeg.

The size of files will vary widely which is dependent on how much color, contrast, settings, etc. 4mb jpeg files are actually quite large. They easily can be printed at 24x36 if not larger.

Think of the file sizes with a base of a "HD" 1080 TV image which is around 2mb in "raw".

joelia said:
RAW files will always be much smaller than jpg's.

?

Jonnyapple: yes, sorry 100%.

hmm what joelia is saying makes sense. I figured that was what was going on.

RAW files will always be much smaller than jpg's. JPG's ARE discarding information when you convert to them, hence the smaller file size. Your tiff is going to be much bigger than the jpg.

Uncompressed tiff won't be different for a given number of pixels and a given bit depth. Do you mean a compressed tiff format, Michael?

What quality settings were you using in lightroom, Andrew? By best, do you mean 100?

I noticed the same thing on my d7000. I think when i converted it to jpeg, it got rid of the "extra" info in the raw file. I'm getting lightroom and pse9 in a few days. Ill try it in tiff and let you know.

I print 24x36's all the time that are around 4-5 mb from a d700... they look fine. You'll want to know what resolution they are and what dpi you are exporting to, file size will be determined by that.

All,
Just got one of my first photo jobs. Shot in Raw on a D7000. Ended up with good looking shots at about 17mb a piece, give or take. Converted them to jpg and they are coming out around 4mb a piece. I am worried they will not enlarge well. Tried converting in Lightroom, Capture NX2 and View NX2. Always chose best quality. Anyone have any idea what is going on?