Photoshop question

[Tim Grey (GreyLearning)]

I was asked to come check out this mysterious post (hello Karen!), so please forgive me for skimming and not reading every response...

One thing that stood out was the absolutely false information from (apparently) Adobe indicating that images are downsampled automatically when sent from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop. That is absolutely false. In fact, it is impossible to downsample (or otherwise resize) an image directly from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop.

From what I gather, the image is being sent from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop with the Photo > Edit In command. I am also assuming that the megapixel size (not the file size) is being evaluated using the Megapixels field in metadata in Lightroom Classic.

The first thing I would do is confirm that the Pixel Dimensions field in Lightroom Classic also shows a change in pixel dimensions between the original raw image and the resulting image after sending it to Photoshop.

If all of the above is true (and I'm understanding the details correctly), I would say that the image must be getting resized in Photoshop somewhere between it arriving from Lightroom Classic and it being saved. This can be confirmed within Photoshop by choosing Image > Image Size from the menu and comparing the pixel dimensions to what is shown in Lightroom Classic.

Megapixel count has nothing to do with the file format or the bit depth or some of the other attributes that have been discussed. Those would affect file size, but not megapixel count. If the megapixel count is changing, that means it is changing in Photoshop. If nothing is being done directly to accomplish that, I would take a look at any scripts or actions that might be at play.

Being new to this forum I'm not sure if I'll see any replies, but I'd be happy to explore this in more detail if the original poster wants to reach out to me at [email protected].

 

[ButlerKid]

I was asked to come check out this mysterious post (hello Karen!), so please forgive me for skimming and not reading every response...

One thing that stood out was the absolutely false information from (apparently) Adobe indicating that images are downsampled automatically when sent from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop. That is absolutely false. In fact, it is impossible to downsample (or otherwise resize) an image directly from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop.

From what I gather, the image is being sent from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop with the Photo > Edit In command. I am also assuming that the megapixel size (not the file size) is being evaluated using the Megapixels field in metadata in Lightroom Classic.

The first thing I would do is confirm that the Pixel Dimensions field in Lightroom Classic also shows a change in pixel dimensions between the original raw image and the resulting image after sending it to Photoshop.

If all of the above is true (and I'm understanding the details correctly), I would say that the image must be getting resized in Photoshop somewhere between it arriving from Lightroom Classic and it being saved. This can be confirmed within Photoshop by choosing Image > Image Size from the menu and comparing the pixel dimensions to what is shown in Lightroom Classic.

Megapixel count has nothing to do with the file format or the bit depth or some of the other attributes that have been discussed. Those would affect file size, but not megapixel count. If the megapixel count is changing, that means it is changing in Photoshop. If nothing is being done directly to accomplish that, I would take a look at any scripts or actions that might be at play.

Being new to this forum I'm not sure if I'll see any replies, but I'd be happy to explore this in more detail if the original poster wants to reach out to me at [email protected].

THANK YOU, TIM! I so appreciate you checking out this thread!

FWIW - I have known Tim since the 90's when he worked with George Lepp. Tim taught me PS and then I took his advanced LR course. Tim is an expert and I totally trust his expertise.

 

[Dawallace99]

I'd take a look at your LR Preferences (Settings) with particular attention to External Editors

Looking at my LRc preferences I still don't see how handing to an external editor like PS would result in automatic image downsizing so perhaps it's something in your PS setup but at least make sure you've selected your file format (TIFF or PSD) and bit depth, color space, etc. in LR's External Editor preferences dialog.

I just looked through all my LRc and PS Preferences (settings) and I really don't see any way to set things up so that a LR file handed off to PS for external editing would by default come back downsized to smaller pixel dimensions. There are plenty of ways to make the file size in Megabytes larger or smaller by choosing different bit depths or different file formats but I can't see any settings that would cause what you're describing.

This one is a real head scratcher. You might try directly opening up a file from your storage drive into PS and then save it as a TIFF and see what its pixel dimensions are. That would be one way to test if PS itself is doing some kind of default image downsizing or whether this only happens when you hand a file from LR to PS and back again.

Also, when you first open the file in PS, what are its image dimensions in pixels prior to sending it back to LR? You can check that up in Image>Image Size. IOW, is the downsizing of the file in pixel dimensions happening as soon as the file is handed to PS or does it happen on the return trip when saved to LR? Again you might open a known file directly into PS to see what image size that appears at on initial open as well as after it's saved from PS.

Gut feel is that one or both apps aren't behaving properly and perhaps a PS or LR re-installation might be in order but I'd probably try to nail things down a bit further with some thoughtful testing.

Ok, I think I know what the issue is, I'm just not sure why it is this way. I'm going to post screenshots of 4 images - 1st is the TIFfile that shows it coming back from Photoshop at 8.9 MP (upper left). The 2nd image is the RAW image that shows it's 21 MP (upper left). 3rd image is the TIF file that came back from PS at dimensions 3657x2438. 4th image is the RAW file that also shows dimensions 3657x2438. So I guess as long as the dimensions are the same, I guess I'm ok?? What I was looking at the most are the 1st 2 images that show in the upper left corner the "MP" - 8.9 MP coming back from PS but the RAW image was 21 MP. Your thoughts??

 

[Dawallace99]

I was asked to come check out this mysterious post (hello Karen!), so please forgive me for skimming and not reading every response...

One thing that stood out was the absolutely false information from (apparently) Adobe indicating that images are downsampled automatically when sent from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop. That is absolutely false. In fact, it is impossible to downsample (or otherwise resize) an image directly from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop.

From what I gather, the image is being sent from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop with the Photo > Edit In command. I am also assuming that the megapixel size (not the file size) is being evaluated using the Megapixels field in metadata in Lightroom Classic.

The first thing I would do is confirm that the Pixel Dimensions field in Lightroom Classic also shows a change in pixel dimensions between the original raw image and the resulting image after sending it to Photoshop.

If all of the above is true (and I'm understanding the details correctly), I would say that the image must be getting resized in Photoshop somewhere between it arriving from Lightroom Classic and it being saved. This can be confirmed within Photoshop by choosing Image > Image Size from the menu and comparing the pixel dimensions to what is shown in Lightroom Classic.

Megapixel count has nothing to do with the file format or the bit depth or some of the other attributes that have been discussed. Those would affect file size, but not megapixel count. If the megapixel count is changing, that means it is changing in Photoshop. If nothing is being done directly to accomplish that, I would take a look at any scripts or actions that might be at play.

Being new to this forum I'm not sure if I'll see any replies, but I'd be happy to explore this in more detail if the original poster wants to reach out to me at [email protected].

Tim, thank you so much for reaching out. Please see my latest reply to DRWyoming....I added screenshots of my plight, but I think even though the "MP" stated on image 1 and 2 are different, the image dimensions are the same (as evidenced in images 3 & 4). Not sure why the MP (again on image 1 & 2) would be different, but they obviously are for some strange reason.

 

[Dawallace99]

THANK YOU, TIM! I so appreciate you checking out this thread!

FWIW - I have known Tim since the 90's when he worked with George Lepp. Tim taught me PS and then I took his advanced LR course. Tim is an expert and I totally trust his expertise.

thank you SO MUCH Karen!! Much appreciated.

 

[Viathelens]

When I bring an image into PS for removing a small object (like a piece of zebra tail in the corner), I use "remove object" which selects the tail, then click the "Generative Fill" box and "Generate" and the tail is gone. Perfectly.

My problem is when I save the image and it goes back into Lightroom, the megapixel size is reduced from 21.0 MP to 6.1MP.....why in the heck is THAT?? I've tried a few other methods to remove but it remains the same reduction in MP down to 6.1.

Can someone help me with this? Or is this how PS works??

Thanks,
Debbie

I did not read all of the above in detail. I use LrC and PS a lot and after doing something in PS I return the image to LrC as a TIFF. My original image file size, in pixels, always remains the same, so if full frame then it's 8256 x 5504 when sent to PS and returned to LrC. I exported an image and the megapixels are actually a lot more than the original file, it's 272.MB, which is consistence with my use of PS, the original was 57.76MB for the image in question that I used. I think it's your settings in one program or the other.

 

[Tim Grey (GreyLearning)]

Ok, I think I know what the issue is, I'm just not sure why it is this way. I'm going to post screenshots of 4 images - 1st is the TIFfile that shows it coming back from Photoshop at 8.9 MP (upper left). The 2nd image is the RAW image that shows it's 21 MP (upper left). 3rd image is the TIF file that came back from PS at dimensions 3657x2438. 4th image is the RAW file that also shows dimensions 3657x2438. So I guess as long as the dimensions are the same, I guess I'm ok?? What I was looking at the most are the 1st 2 images that show in the upper left corner the "MP" - 8.9 MP coming back from PS but the RAW image was 21 MP. Your thoughts??

The plot thickens!!! In your screen shots, all the images show pixel dimensions of 3657x2438. But even though the pixel dimensions match, the raw shows 21 megapixels while the TIFF shows 8.9 megapixels. But the math for the pixel dimensions translates to 8.9 megapixels. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but can you confirm which camera is being used? I'm guessing it is a 21 megapixel camera, but does it perhaps offer a reduced resolution capture option? The mismatch in the dimensions and megapixels is odd. Unless you dramatically cropped the image in Lightroom Classic?

 

[Dawallace99]

It's easy to mix up megabytes and megapixels. There should be no difference in megapixels unless one resizes on purpose in photoshop. Megabytes are just how much storage it takes to save the file.

Tiff files are bigger than raw files in terms of megabytes because raw files are monochromatic. The raw converter converts to RGB so the extra color info takes more storage to save.

The plot thickens!!! In your screen shots, all the images show pixel dimensions of 3657x2438. But even though the pixel dimensions match, the raw shows 21 megapixels while the TIFF shows 8.9 megapixels. But the math for the pixel dimensions translates to 8.9 megapixels. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but can you confirm which camera is being used? I'm guessing it is a 21 megapixel camera, but does it perhaps offer a reduced resolution capture option? The mismatch in the dimensions and megapixels is odd. Unless you dramatically cropped the image in Lightroom Classic?

Yes, I had it on APSC mode with both the Sony A1 and Sony A7RV on some of the images (not all the images). In the image I sent you, I only straightened the horizontal lines, that's it, without any other cropping. I know, it's really strange, huh?? Everyone keeps chiming in about my "settings" in either/both LRc and/or PS but that's not much help. Thank you so much for trying to help me with this; it is definitely greatly appreciated. I couldn't get anywhere with Adobe; I called twice, spoke with 2 different people, both of whom told me it's "normal" for PS to downsize automatically since they converted a RAW file to a TIFF file....ugh

 

[Dawallace99]

The plot thickens!!! In your screen shots, all the images show pixel dimensions of 3657x2438. But even though the pixel dimensions match, the raw shows 21 megapixels while the TIFF shows 8.9 megapixels. But the math for the pixel dimensions translates to 8.9 megapixels. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but can you confirm which camera is being used? I'm guessing it is a 21 megapixel camera, but does it perhaps offer a reduced resolution capture option? The mismatch in the dimensions and megapixels is odd. Unless you dramatically cropped the image in Lightroom Classic?

Is there anything I can do to fix this??

 

[DRwyoming]

Yes, I had it on APSC mode with both the Sony A1 and Sony A7RV on some of the images (not all the images). In the image I sent you, I only straightened the horizontal lines, that's it, without any other cropping. I know, it's really strange, huh?? Everyone keeps chiming in about my "settings" in either/both LRc and/or PS but that's not much help. Thank you so much for trying to help me with this; it is definitely greatly appreciated. I couldn't get anywhere with Adobe; I called twice, spoke with 2 different people, both of whom told me it's "normal" for PS to downsize automatically since they converted a RAW file to a TIFF file....ugh

Both images are the same pixel dimensions, neither have been downsized in PS. LR displaying 21 MP vs 8.9 MP with the EXIF shooting data appears to be some kind of error and one that I suspect many of us have never seen before.

Basically in both cases the image is 3657 x 2438 pixels, multiply those to get the total pixels or 8915766 pixels which rounds to 8.9 Megapixels.

IOW, this image both before and after PS editing is an 8.9 Megapixel image. The issue is just that the EXIF data on the RAW image falsely shows it to be a 21 Megapixel image but it was never that size. The problem appears to be an error in how the megapixel field is displayed and that sending it to PS corrects that problem and properly shows the actual image pixel count in Megapixels.

I for one suggested checking LR and PS settings on the assumption that you were actually looking at pixel dimensions and in LR and seeing them change but the pixel dimensions do not change. So yeah, that was a red herring and there's no reason to worry about LR or PS setting problems.

There's still part of this that doesn't add up. Here's the expected pixel dimensions for a Sony A1 in normal 3:2 aspect ratio:

• IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [3:2]​

  35 mm full frame L: 8640 x 5760 (49.7M), M: 5616 x 3744 (21M), S: 4320 x 2880 (12.4M), APS-C M: 5616 x 3744 (21M), S: 4320 x 2880 (12.4M)

In APS-C crop mode you should have 5616 x 3744 pixels or roughly 21 Megapixels not 3657 x 2438 as shown with your RAW image. Even with the small APS-C setting you should have roughly 12.4 Megapixels. I don't see any settings in 1:1 crop, 16:9 crop or 4:3 crop that should give you the pixel dimensions shown with your images for the RAW file. Someone more familiar with Sony camera settings might weigh in on why you're seeing the pixel dimensions you are seeing straight out of camera but to me that doesn't make sense based on the published camera specs. Perhaps there's some kind of noise reduction or something else applied in-camera that's reducing the pixel size but I'd leave that to folks more familiar with your camera.

In terms of the original problem this appears to be a display error for the original RAW image though personally I'd still do what I recommended above and open the RAW file directly in PS and see what it says for pixel dimensions with no LR involvement to figure out if PS also shows this to be a 3657 x 2438 pixel image straight out of camera.

But in terms of concerns that PS is downsizing the image, it's clear it is not and actually after passing the image through LR the summary MP field is corrected to what it should have displayed for the original file. Why it didn't display correctly at first and why the camera is sending you that reduced size file that doesn't match up with its published specs even in Medium or Small file size mode is strange.

My only Sony these days is a A6300 so I'll defer to folks more familiar with the A1 and expected pixel dimensions as to why you're getting the files you're getting but in terms of the original concerns that Photoshop is stripping away pixels, it isn't.

 

[MMoretti]

It may be informative if someone else could test the original image on a different LR/PS system.

 

[Dawallace99]

Dave,

What you just said makes TOTAL sense to me, finally. I knew there was something wrong but didn't know enough to be able to articulate it. So my Sony A1, for some reason, isn't showing the proper "MP" in the upper left of the screen. I just went back and recalculated a few more images and most of them are incorrect.....hmmmmm.....not quite sure now what to do

Both images are the same pixel dimensions, neither have been downsized. LR displaying 21 MP vs 8.9 MP with the EXIF shooting data appears to be some kind of error and one that I suspect many of us have never seen before.

Basically in both cases the image is 3657 x 2438 pixels, multiply those to get the total pixels or 8915766 pixels which rounds to 8.9 Megapixels.

IOW, this image both before and after PS editing is an 8.9 Megapixel image. The issue is just that the EXIF data on the RAW image falsely shows it to be a 21 Megapixel image but it was never that size. The problem appears to be an error in how the megapixel field is displayed and that sending it to PS corrects that problem and properly shows the actual image pixel count in Megapixels.

I for one suggested checking LR and PS settings on the assumption that you were actually looking at pixel dimensions and in LR and seeing them change but the pixel dimensions do not change. So yeah, that was a red herring and there's no reason to worry about LR or PS setting problems.

There's still part of this that doesn't add up. Here's the expected pixel dimensions for a Sony A1 in normal 3:2 aspect ratio:

• IMAGE SIZE (PIXELS) [3:2]​

  35 mm full frame L: 8640 x 5760 (49.7M), M: 5616 x 3744 (21M), S: 4320 x 2880 (12.4M), APS-C M: 5616 x 3744 (21M), S: 4320 x 2880 (12.4M)

In APS-C crop mode you should have 5616 x 3744 pixels or roughly 21 Megapixels not 3657 x 2438 as shown with your RAW image. Even with the small APS-C setting you should have roughly 12.4 Megapixels. I don't see any settings in 1:1 crop, 16:9 crop or 4:3 crop that should give you the pixel dimensions shown with your images for the RAW file. Someone more familiar with Sony camera settings might weigh in on why you're seeing the pixel dimensions you are seeing straight out of camera but to me that doesn't make sense based on the published camera specs. Perhaps there's some kind of noise reduction or something else applied in-camera that's reducing the pixel size but I'd leave that to folks more familiar with your camera.

In terms of the original problem this appears to be a display error for the original RAW image though personally I'd still do what I recommended above and open the RAW file directly in PS and see what it says for pixel dimensions with no LR involvement to figure out if PS also shows this to be a 3657 x 2438 pixel image straight out of camera.

But in terms of concerns that PS is downsizing the image, it's clear it is not and actually after passing the image through LR the summary MP field is corrected to what it should have displayed for the original file. Why it didn't display correctly at first and why the camera is sending you that reduced size file that doesn't match up with its published specs even in Medium or Small file size mode is strange.

My only Sony these days is a A6300 so I'll defer to folks more familiar with the A1 and expected pixel dimensions as to why you're getting the files you're getting but in terms of the original concerns that Photoshop is stripping away pixels, it isn't.

 

[Dawallace99]

Dave,

What you just said makes TOTAL sense to me, finally. I knew there was something wrong but didn't know enough to be able to articulate it. So my Sony A1, for some reason, isn't showing the proper "MP" in the upper left of the screen. I just went back and recalculated a few more images and most of them are incorrect.....hmmmmm.....not quite sure now what to

Yes, I had it on APSC mode with both the Sony A1 and Sony A7RV on some of the images (not all the images). In the image I sent you, I only straightened the horizontal lines, that's it, without any other cropping. I know, it's really strange, huh?? Everyone keeps chiming in about my "settings" in either/both LRc and/or PS but that's not much help. Thank you so much for trying to help me with this; it is definitely greatly appreciated. I couldn't get anywhere with Adobe; I called twice, spoke with 2 different people, both of whom told me it's "normal" for PS to downsize automatically since they converted a RAW file to a TIFF file....ugh

Tim, did you see Dave's reply this morning?? I think he's narrowed down the issue but still not sure where to go from here....

 

[Dawallace99]

I just went back to earlier images with a different camera. When there is NO cropping done, LR displays the MP correctly (according to the calculated dimensions). But if you CROP, LR does NOT display the correct "MP" in the upper left. That's why when I "edit in Photoshop" the edited image comes back with the corrected MP in the upper left. Is this an Adobe issue??

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

To the OP, you might want to retitle the thread to reflect your issue based on the learning in case others need to find it in the future.

 

[bleirer]

Since a raw in lightroom can be reverted back to its full dimensions anytime it makes sense that it keeps the full mp value. Once exported as a tiff to photoshop those pixel dimensions would be baked into the tiff and no longer reversible in the tiff that is sent back to lightroom from photoshop. Another reason I prefer to crop in photoshop, since you can click a checkbox to preserve the cropped area to revert to full size if needed.

 

[DRwyoming]

I just went back to earlier images with a different camera. When there is NO cropping done, LR displays the MP correctly (according to the calculated dimensions). But if you CROP, LR does NOT display the correct "MP" in the upper left. That's why when I "edit in Photoshop" the edited image comes back with the corrected MP in the upper left. Is this an Adobe issue??

Just to clarify, did you do that crop in LR? If so, as Bill posted above it makes sense LR does not change the MP field for the RAW file as just as Bill points out LR allows you to reset all edits at any time for the original file RAW or otherwise so the crop and reduced pixel dimensions aren't baked in until you export or send the file to another program and have a copy returned. That's just part of LR's non destructive editing paradigm to keep all file data prior to exporting the image so you can back out and do different edits in the future if desired. But once you send it to PS and it returns a TIFF or JPEG or some other new file then those edits are permanent including cropping.

Which gets back to the original RAW file with the elephants. Did you do ANY cropping to that RAW file that shows as 21 MP but has actual pixel dimensions of 8.9 MP? You mentioned fixing a slanted horizon, depending on how slanted that horizon was that could still be a substantial amount of cropping. If you cropped that image down from the original A1 pixel dimensions for APS-C down to the 3657 x 2438 pixels shown then everything makes sense and there is no camera nor LR nor PS problems.

The best test for this is to take the original elephant file or another from the same series. Open it in LR and do no edits at all, no horizon fixes, no crops, nothing. Look at the actual pixel dimensions and the MP field displayed. It should show roughly 21 MP both through pixel calculation and the displayed field. If that's the case then this whole thing is just a misunderstanding of what is displayed in the MP field (the actual pixel dimensions of the RAW file) and the impact of cropping even for something as simple as a horizon fix rotation. If a RAW file with no editing at all still shows these reduced pixel dimensions then something else is still going on but I expect that's not the case.

 

[ButlerKid]

@Dawallace99 - please check your private messages. Look in the upper right corner of any page and click on the "envelope" icon that is right after your avatar.

Preferences for alerts can be set in your account details.

 

[Dawallace99]

To the OP, you might want to retitle the thread to reflect your issue based on the learning in case others need to find it in the future.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm really not sure what I would call it!! It's pretty complex!! But I think it's just my lack of understanding how LR works

 

[Dawallace99]

Since a raw in lightroom can be reverted back to its full dimensions anytime it makes sense that it keeps the full mp value. Once exported as a tiff to photoshop those pixel dimensions would be baked into the tiff and no longer reversible in the tiff that is sent back to lightroom from photoshop. Another reason I prefer to crop in photoshop, since you can click a checkbox to preserve the cropped area to revert to full size if needed.

that's really good info, Bill, thank you!

 

[Dawallace99]

Just to clarify, did you do that crop in LR? If so, as Bill posted above it makes sense LR does not change the MP field for the RAW file as just as Bill points out LR allows you to reset all edits at any time for the original file RAW or otherwise so the crop and reduced pixel dimensions aren't baked in until you export or send the file to another program and have a copy returned. That's just part of LR's non destructive editing paradigm to keep all file data prior to exporting the image so you can back out and do different edits in the future if desired. But once you send it to PS and it returns a TIFF or JPEG or some other new file then those edits are permanent including cropping.

Which gets back to the original RAW file with the elephants. Did you do ANY cropping to that RAW file that shows as 21 MP but has actual pixel dimensions of 8.9 MP? You mentioned fixing a slanted horizon, depending on how slanted that horizon was that could still be a substantial amount of cropping. If you cropped that image down from the original A1 pixel dimensions for APS-C down to the 3657 x 2438 pixels shown then everything makes sense and there is no camera nor LR nor PS problems.

The best test for this is to take the original elephant file or another from the same series. Open it in LR and do no edits at all, no horizon fixes, no crops, nothing. Look at the actual pixel dimensions and the MP field displayed. It should show roughly 21 MP both through pixel calculation and the displayed field. If that's the case then this whole thing is just a misunderstanding of what is displayed in the MP field (the actual pixel dimensions of the RAW file) and the impact of cropping even for something as simple as a horizon fix rotation. If a RAW file with no editing at all still shows these reduced pixel dimensions then something else is still going on but I expect that's not the case.

I beginning to see that I've created a mess here for which I apologize. I think it's just my lack of understanding how LR works with the MP's and cropped dimensions. I understand now (thanks to you and everyone else chiming in, that in LR, it's always going to show the RAW image as the total number of MP's but the cropped dimensions will be different IF you crop it which will NOT add up to the total number of MP's. I incorrectly assumed that LR would change the MP's even on the RAW image if you cropped it - but like you and others have said, in LR you can revert back to the RAW image at any time. So, I don't think I have a problem anymore - thank you SO VERY MUCH for your patience with me and your expert knowledge and advice in trying to help me get to the bottom of this. Sorry it's taken so long for me to understand it....again my apologies for taking up so much of your time. You have the patience of a saint!!

 

[ButlerKid]

LR is a great program. But it requires a bit of discipline and quite a bit of understanding of how LR works.....and why. In particular, once you start using LR, doing something outside of LR (like moving images !) can cause serious problems. I strongly encourage you to consider investing a bit of time - and maybe a little money - to take one or two courses so that you can be confident in the best way to manage and process your images.

 

[Roy]

When I bring an image into PS for removing a small object (like a piece of zebra tail in the corner), I use "remove object" which selects the tail, then click the "Generative Fill" box and "Generate" and the tail is gone. Perfectly.

My problem is when I save the image and it goes back into Lightroom, the megapixel size is reduced from 21.0 MP to 6.1MP.....why in the heck is THAT?? I've tried a few other methods to remove but it remains the same reduction in MP down to 6.1.

Can someone help me with this? Or is this how PS works??

Thanks,
Debbie

If you are saving in JPEG then it could be different levels of compression.
Be aware that JPG is lossy and softens the image every time you load or save it...

 

[Dawallace99]

If you are saving in JPEG then it could be different levels of compression.
Be aware that JPG is lossy and softens the image every time you load or save it...

It's not a Jpg file, it's RAW