Hold it one second....!

Digital_Clarity

Digital_Clarity

Suspended / Banned
Messages
922
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Typing this whilst waiting for my computer to catch up with itself...

Concerning use of JPEG or raw; for those who have ever said "memory is cheap" "Use raw, no need to compress to JPEG to save space" or the likes, please also that if you ever want to use photoshop or make layered documents the files sizes get HUGE!

Just felt like posting this nugget given how I'm 2/3rds of the way through adding in raw file layers to a TIFF file and it's already hit 1Gb.

Makes a case for using Jpegs in certain circumstances (even for the raw-lovers) perhaps?

Back to Photoshop now, it's finally finished saving the thing.
 
Not sure I get what you mean,

I no longer save pics as tiffs. What I do is adjust in ACR open up as jpeg in PS, do final adjustments then save as.. I choose default jpeg but you could choose Tiff, PSD etc.

But PP in PS is done with a Jpeg not a Tiff.
 
Sorry, whiskey isn't conducive to coherence.

Just meant that whenever the debate regarding raw vs JPEG comes up it's easy to forget just how cumbersome it can be when working with multiple raw files.

It's worth considering this against the spec of your computer also... Mine really is struggling with these files.
 
I have a very high res camera(5D2), so my files are very big. If my pics are just for personal reasons, I now shoot jpeg. If they are for a pro, or very important I shoot Raw, I admit it's my computer and the fact I use PS 3 that dictates this. If I had a better computer and a more up-to-date PS version I would shoot Raw all the time. So I understand where you are coming from.
 
I didn't think Photoshop opened RAW images?

I always use lightroom for basic RAW editing, then export as jpeg and any final editing in PS.
 
Photoshop opens most things. I've just realised that my raw files seem to be opening as 16 bit images which explains a lot...

Image ended up at 1.6 gigabytes :o
 
A question if an image is processed with cs5 64bit and cs3 8bit and then printed A4 will anyone be able to see the difference
 
If it is any help - I work with layers a hell of a lot. What you need to do is carefully consider what you need on the layer. For example if you are stacking you need to duplicate the entire image. However if you're selectively sharpening you only need to copy the relevent part of your image onto a new layer - thus keeping the size down.

It's easy to get carried away and end up with a half dozen duplicated layers when you don't actually need that much info in the stream.
 
I'm always amazed at the way some people will spend a fortune on camera kit yet will then use an outdated or cheap computer or even a laptop to work on the images.
 
It doesnt take long to realise that was a mistake though :)
 
If it is any help - I work with layers a hell of a lot. What you need to do is carefully consider what you need on the layer. For example if you are stacking you need to duplicate the entire image. However if you're selectively sharpening you only need to copy the relevent part of your image onto a new layer - thus keeping the size down.

It's easy to get carried away and end up with a half dozen duplicated layers when you don't actually need that much info in the stream.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

I'm always amazed at the way some people will spend a fortune on camera kit yet will then use an outdated or cheap computer or even a laptop to work on the images.
Click to expand...
Well I'm working on a Dell XPS Dual core (2.0 GHz), although lacking in RAM (only 3Gb). Really want to get a monstrous PC for heavy editing at home. This laptop isn't really made for image files that big.

It doesnt take long to realise that was a mistake though
Click to expand...
Yep, changed to 8 bit, file size halfed more or less. Job done :)
 
Digital_Clarity said:
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

Well I'm working on a Dell XPS Dual core (2.0 GHz), although lacking in RAM (only 3Gb). Really want to get a monstrous PC for heavy editing at home. This laptop isn't really made for image files that big.

Yep, changed to 8 bit, file size halfed more or less. Job done :)
Click to expand...

i was recently forced to upgrade my machine, went AMD quad 3.0ghz with 8gb of ram... its a beast compared to the old dualcore neandathol i used to have, overclocked it hits 3.8 on each core, then it really flies, i wanted 16gb but pennies at the time didnt permit... maybe another day :)
 
Quad core iMac! What a difference in speed from the Vaio I was using!

5D MkII in Raw so you can imagine file sizes.
 
Quad core iMac!
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, did you hear about that robbery at the Apple store? Over £10,000 of equipment was stolen. Police say they should be able to recover both computers.

Not my own joke (obviously!) but illustrates the point; they're a little out of my price range :)
 
It's not the storage size, it's the handling size. Using a single 16 bit image instantly puts my PS physical ram usage up to 1GB and it just worsens from there.

I just need to upgrade my computer... More money! :(
 
I know what you mean, I stitched a Panorama that came to around 65Mp equivalent, in JPEG. After opening it in PSP and editing a little I was unable to save itas there was not enough memory for the computer to actually process it back into a JPEG, it could however save it as a pspimage as it's a raw formatthat requires no procesing other than 'streaming' the data to disc.

I've had to upgrade the laptop specifically to handle this photo! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top