Unwanted File Size Shrinkage on Save
I am using Photoshop 6.0.1 and let's say I have scanned an
image that is is 12 mb jpeg.
I put that 12 mb image into photoshop and do whatever corrections are needed, some are minor and some are very
major corrections.
After saving the file, instead of expecting a slightly to
moderate file size increase - the opposite happens and that 12 mb jpeg is very much smaller.
The saved image is also saved to jpeg FYI. I do not fully
understand what is happening here. I am not a photoshop
"expert" but I have a fairly good knowledge about it to
the extent I am comfortable with the things I do with
Photoshop. I am tho a professional photographer for the past 42 years.
This also will happen with even tiff files. Some scans are
in the neighborhood of 80 to 200 mb files at usually 600 -
1200 & occasionally 1600 dpi.
I wish to preserve all the quality that I have diligently
scanned and worked on. I don't think by having by some
quirk my files so reduced on save that I am preserving
what I originally had.
Would someone please tell me what I am doing wrong and how
to preserve my file size. Any and all comments are highly
appreciated.
image that is is 12 mb jpeg.
I put that 12 mb image into photoshop and do whatever corrections are needed, some are minor and some are very
major corrections.
After saving the file, instead of expecting a slightly to
moderate file size increase - the opposite happens and that 12 mb jpeg is very much smaller.
The saved image is also saved to jpeg FYI. I do not fully
understand what is happening here. I am not a photoshop
"expert" but I have a fairly good knowledge about it to
the extent I am comfortable with the things I do with
Photoshop. I am tho a professional photographer for the past 42 years.
This also will happen with even tiff files. Some scans are
in the neighborhood of 80 to 200 mb files at usually 600 -
1200 & occasionally 1600 dpi.
I wish to preserve all the quality that I have diligently
scanned and worked on. I don't think by having by some
quirk my files so reduced on save that I am preserving
what I originally had.
Would someone please tell me what I am doing wrong and how
to preserve my file size. Any and all comments are highly
appreciated.
weed
How much smaller? Half the size?
ASKER
I cannot remember exact details but at times I am looking at way smaller than half.
Examples are as follows:
824kb to 104kb
845kb to 115kb
770kb to 91.8kb
873kb to 117kb
977kb to 125kb
792kb to 104kb
All of these received only minor corrections and as you can
see there is a dramatic decrease in the file size.
These were scanned at 200 dpi but I have others of this same subject which I plan on working on which are scanned
much higher that I have not touched yet. One set is jpeg & the other set are tiff files.
I have not touched those yet until I can find an answer.
Examples are as follows:
824kb to 104kb
845kb to 115kb
770kb to 91.8kb
873kb to 117kb
977kb to 125kb
792kb to 104kb
All of these received only minor corrections and as you can
see there is a dramatic decrease in the file size.
These were scanned at 200 dpi but I have others of this same subject which I plan on working on which are scanned
much higher that I have not touched yet. One set is jpeg & the other set are tiff files.
I have not touched those yet until I can find an answer.
And the exact same thing happens with TIFF files?
ASKER
Same thing happens but usually to a lesser extent. I am planning on working on these same files which are tiffs & range from 76.6mb to 90.4 mb.
Probally I will dupe the tiffs and work form them and just see what happens.
I'd like to see a resolve to this problem before I start to
work on larger, more important files.
For the record I am using a 1.7 gig Athlon with an Abit KG7
motherboard and 1.5 gigs of ddr ram.
Probally I will dupe the tiffs and work form them and just see what happens.
I'd like to see a resolve to this problem before I start to
work on larger, more important files.
For the record I am using a 1.7 gig Athlon with an Abit KG7
motherboard and 1.5 gigs of ddr ram.
Well, my best guess is that youre compressing them and not realizing it. Do the finished images look any different from what you started with? Any JPEG artifacts etc?
ASKER
When I few them I am seeing, IMHO, a quality loss in sharpness & not the full effect I had in mind.
Then how am I compressing them without my knowledge ?
Then how am I compressing them without my knowledge ?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I think you may be onto something here - I checked it out with a jpeg I could affored to lose and sure enough the
slider somehow got put on 10 and not 12. This was also a
Photoshop reinstall and wuote possibly this fact was overlooked in haste.
Now - what would cause the same effect in a tiff file ? I know for a fact that I am not using LZW compression. We can
rule that one out.
So what have I possibly done to affect the final size of my
quality tiffs ?
slider somehow got put on 10 and not 12. This was also a
Photoshop reinstall and wuote possibly this fact was overlooked in haste.
Now - what would cause the same effect in a tiff file ? I know for a fact that I am not using LZW compression. We can
rule that one out.
So what have I possibly done to affect the final size of my
quality tiffs ?
For the TIFFs have you changed the color mode from CMYK to RGB? Were they multilayered TIFFs or have extra channels?
ASKER
Nope ! I always work in RGB. If you mean that did I work &
do corrections in layers, yes - I do that quite often and upon completion I do flatten the image - the same as I would do with a jpeg.
Have I compromised my image in that way ?
do corrections in layers, yes - I do that quite often and upon completion I do flatten the image - the same as I would do with a jpeg.
Have I compromised my image in that way ?
Tiff files can contain layers so if the original tiff had layers, and the finished one didnt, youd get a smaller file.
ASKER
The original tiff files had no layers, as they came straight from the scanner, which is an Epson 1650 Photo.
Not sure about the TIFFs then. Maybe the scanner software tosses in a bunch of extra non-essential information like captions etc.
ASKER
Don't think so - no captions or anything like that. My tiffs are usually scanned at anything from 800 - 1200 dpi &
occasionally 1600. I work with photos from 4 X 6 to 8 X 10
glossy in size. I rarely scan negatives but the scanner will do them. Most of my work is with 35mm & are original
work, but on occasion I do copies, such as will be my next
task - reproducing and correcting a 40 year old architect
airbrush drawing which will need extensive corrections.
These were printed 8 X 10 and scanned to a tiff & I have not even touched them until I feel this matter is resolved.
What I am working on is basically 6 versions of a portrait,
from head & shoulders to full length.
occasionally 1600. I work with photos from 4 X 6 to 8 X 10
glossy in size. I rarely scan negatives but the scanner will do them. Most of my work is with 35mm & are original
work, but on occasion I do copies, such as will be my next
task - reproducing and correcting a 40 year old architect
airbrush drawing which will need extensive corrections.
These were printed 8 X 10 and scanned to a tiff & I have not even touched them until I feel this matter is resolved.
What I am working on is basically 6 versions of a portrait,
from head & shoulders to full length.
There has to be some extra information stored in there if youre not seeing noticeable quality loss and are getting smaller files.
ASKER
I guess but what could it be ? I have no real clue on it
frankly !
frankly !
Could be channels, color palettes, etc. Doesnt really matter though as long as the final output hasnt lost quality.
ASKER
I think for now the jpeg thing is probally solved. I'll just have to watch what happenes with a tiff and record the
differences, if any.
I'll dupe a tiff and work that way - dont' think there is
any loss per se in doing that but from what I know there is
some loss whenever you dupe or copy a jpeg - that's why you
start with something big evne with a jpg if you have plans
like that.
differences, if any.
I'll dupe a tiff and work that way - dont' think there is
any loss per se in doing that but from what I know there is
some loss whenever you dupe or copy a jpeg - that's why you
start with something big evne with a jpg if you have plans
like that.
There is only a loss in quality with JPEGs if you keep resaving it as a JPEG. Duplicating doesnt change the quality.
ASKER
Thought it did - thanks for that tip too ! Maybe all these years I had been "too careful" with my jpegs - lol !
ASKER
Just looked at your bio - quite impressive both on EE and
elsewhere ! See ur a Mac Man - never fooled with them but
have mostly gone with Windows flavors: NT, ME (a joke for an OS), W2K and XP (another joke) and recently Linux.
I'm no comp expert, having only about near 6 years experience. What I do know is photography and have done it
42 of my 60 years.
Keep up the good work !!! :-)
elsewhere ! See ur a Mac Man - never fooled with them but
have mostly gone with Windows flavors: NT, ME (a joke for an OS), W2K and XP (another joke) and recently Linux.
I'm no comp expert, having only about near 6 years experience. What I do know is photography and have done it
42 of my 60 years.
Keep up the good work !!! :-)
Ought to try OS X if youre sick of MS and like the unix world.
ASKER
lol - no offence but that would mean another computer and I have 3 of them so far ! I'm running out of room here already with all the junk I own.
I have heard that for some reason the Mac is a better graphics machine than Windows OS - don't know the reasons behind all that.
I use this 1.7 gig Athlon for graphics mostly - have a dual
partition with W2K and XP and then another 1 gig athlon with a recently installed Linux distro and an old 200 dual
Pentium Pro with 2 hard drives, 3 partitions. have 128 ram in the dual, 512 in the 1 gig and 1.5 gig in the newer Athlon.
I have heard that for some reason the Mac is a better graphics machine than Windows OS - don't know the reasons behind all that.
I use this 1.7 gig Athlon for graphics mostly - have a dual
partition with W2K and XP and then another 1 gig athlon with a recently installed Linux distro and an old 200 dual
Pentium Pro with 2 hard drives, 3 partitions. have 128 ram in the dual, 512 in the 1 gig and 1.5 gig in the newer Athlon.
Macs have advantages in graphics for lots of reasons but explaining the differences gets tiresome and tedious. Basically they just make sense, dont crash as much and have better color management.
ASKER
well that's nit a bad answer in a nutshell :-) ! Yea old
WINdoze do crash and have their little "temper tantrums" like some 3 year old.
I have no real experience with Linux but am working on learning it in my spare time. A steep learning curve probally far greater than Photoshop, which in it's own right is a wonderful and powerful tool for the graphic artist. I doubt anything will come along in the near or distant future to equal that "Rolls Royce" software, even
Gimp has its limitations but is'nt bad - even ported to Windows.
Too bad I'm in my senior years when all this computer stuff really is going on - would give alot to be 30 or even 40 again and be really into computers.
WINdoze do crash and have their little "temper tantrums" like some 3 year old.
I have no real experience with Linux but am working on learning it in my spare time. A steep learning curve probally far greater than Photoshop, which in it's own right is a wonderful and powerful tool for the graphic artist. I doubt anything will come along in the near or distant future to equal that "Rolls Royce" software, even
Gimp has its limitations but is'nt bad - even ported to Windows.
Too bad I'm in my senior years when all this computer stuff really is going on - would give alot to be 30 or even 40 again and be really into computers.
ASKER
Part of the problem was solved - there will need to be more experimentation on my part but I am satisfied with the answers and the diligence on the part of weed to help
me with this problem !
Well done !
me with this problem !
Well done !