Consumer Electronics » Cameras » Are pics with more size ( MB ) are high quality?

Are pics with more size ( MB ) are high quality?

Or pics with good clarity and less MB are high quality?
On Google photos when I choose high quality they reduce MB. my pic of 4 MB becomes 200 K
But I think It looks same.
is it high quality?

Below is the recommendation and reference answer for question "Are pics with more size ( MB ) are high quality?" It was collected and sorted by the editor of this site but not sure the answer is entirely accurate.

obvisously it isnt rocket science

Photo quality (namely it's resolution) is mostly dictated by it's size yes. A low quality photo will be <1 MB in size while a high quality one will be larger 3MB.

Doesn't work like that. The file size also depends on overall brightness of the image as well as its size.

Somewhat, but not absolutely the case. The sheer size of the picture in terms of digital size does not mean it is a higher quality picture. For instance you could take a low quality pic, raise the resolution & thereby increase the size doesn't mean the quality goes up with it.

Sometimes also depending on the format the picture is saved in the size of the file is increased as well.

File size is one measure... lighting used when the image was captured, megapixel count, compression used, viewing size, shutter speed, camera angle, whether the image is in focus or not and lots more will define "quality".

For example, a 24 megapixel image that is captured in poor lighting resulting in noise and slow shutter speed resulting in ghosting of any movement will not be a "high quality" image... compared to a 10 megapixel image captured under nice bright, sunlight with the camera mounted to a tripod and a fast shutter speed freezing any motion...

Short answer: Yes. More MB means a larger file that can be used to make larger prints. But, you also have have to consider the color depth (a.k.a. bit depth) which will give the image a better tonality. You also have to consider the size of the pixels. A 12MP Sony A7S Mark II will produce a significantly better image than a 24MP point-and-shoot because the pixels are much, much larger which provides greater dynamic range and much less noise. Then you have to consider the lens. A cheap lens on a 50MP Canon 5DS R will produce a lower picture quality (but can be printed larger) than a low-end DSLR like a T5 with a high-grade lens. Most of what people perceive as "image quality" has to do with the lens and not the camera itself. Then there are the factors outside of the camera such as the photographer's skill, their decision as to what to photograph, the lighting they choose, composition,etc... All of these factors can make an image with lower MB have a "higher image quality" than a larger file. So, more MB means a file is larger and can most likely be printed larger, but not necessarily of higher quality.

Megabytes (MB) is the amount of space that a file takes up on a storage device. There are a few things that will make a photo file such as a JPEG, TIFF, or DNG large. The resolution or megapixels is the most obvious. Another is the bit depth or color depth which is the number of tones per color channel. JPEGs must be 8-bit files which is to say that all JPEGs must have 256 (2^8 = 256) tones. Other file types such as TIFF and RAW files out of the camera are typically 12 bits (2^12 = 4,096) or 14 bits (2^14 = 16,384). So even with the same resolution, a RAW file will be substantially larger than JPEGs. But does this increase in size mean that a RAW file is of a "higher quality?" Not necessarily. If you compare a JPEG to a RAW file right out of the camera, a JPEG will look better because RAW files have not been adjusted like JPEGs have been in camera. RAW files will allow you to open up shadows and bring down highlights allowing you to recover details that could be lost in JPEGs.

* They certainly can "look" the same since your monitor can only resolve 1920 x 1080 pixels at 72 ppi. No matter how much resolution the image actually has, your monitor cannot resolve it
* Using your photo program, view your small 4 mb image file as 100% and the 200 kb file at the same 100%

Modern digital SLR cameras have large sensors with from 12 mp to 36 mp.

They typically produce RAW image files of from 16 mb (12 mp) to 41 mb (36 mp) or JPEG image files of 6 mb (12 mp) to 16 mb (36 mp)

When you look at an image file on your computers monitor, there is not going to be any visual difference when it comes to apparent resolution due to the limitations of the monitor of itself.

might be saying 200k mb or something along those lines if it didn't say kb

File size is one measure... lighting used when the image was captured, megapixel count, compression used, viewing size, shutter speed, camera angle, whether the image is in focus or not and lots more will define "quality".

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, because a 10mb photo could look worse then a 1mb photo, it all depends on the camera and resolution.

Resolution really doesn t affect image quality, unless it gets too low.