What is your real image size?
Many (perhaps most) of you may be aware of this, but I was not.
In a recent thread one of the posters (Tbolt47) mentioned that PhotoNinja software displayed more of his images than LR did and this made me wonder about differences in display size (and image content) between different editors. For example, for my Canon 5D3 images, LR, ASP and Photoshop all show the image as 5760 x 3840 or approx 22.1MP/image. This is what Canon advertises the camera image size to be and I had thought this was the actual image size. However Tbolt47's post made me wonder about other editors. I have a number of other editors that I occasionally use and started loading my images (including older ones) into them. What I found surprised me.
Sagelight, an editor I particularly like for its masking abilities, loads my 5D3 images as 5920 x 3950 or approx 23.4MP. This is more than 5% larger than LR, PS and ASP and the image is not just resized, but actually contains parts of the image I had not seen with the more mainstream editors.
To show the difference between the two image sizes I cropped part of the image as shown by ASP and as shown by Sagelight. I made no effort to standardize the colors between the two editors since I was only interested in the image contents. Sagelight tends to colorize the images more than ASP or Lightroom and the difference is noticeable between the two crops.
Here is ASP crop (LR and PS show the same). In particular note the saguaro cactus on the left.
Here is the image as shown by Sagelight.
As you can see there is a noticeable difference between the content of the two images. I will admit that 5.7% is not much, but it is easy to see the extra content in the image.
I tried this also with some crop images from some other Canon cameras (60D, 600D and 7D) but for the crop cameras the difference was minimal - Sagelight displayed only about 0.6% more of the image.
Has anyone tried this with other cameras than Canon? And is the reason that editors like LR, ASP and Photoshop drop the extra image content because they believe the edges of the images to be of a much lower quality? Or something else? 5% is enough of a difference to notice and I am surprised that so much of an image is completely dropped by most editors.