I've received several scanned images from another party in .jpg format. The file sizes of some run about 100k and others about 300k.
When I looked at the image properties they were almost the same for each of them. All of them had a resolution of 96x96 and each having around 40,000 pixels (roughly 500X800 pixel images). The print sizes were all about 5.5x8.5 inches.
Why would .jpg images with similar pixel resolution and number have such different file sizes?
This question may seem obvious to some of you but I'd like to understand this issue. I've been taking digital photos in Raw format for use in photoshop, I'd eventually like to send them in to a stock photography site and the one I'm thinking of applying to, Alamy, demands file sizes of 48MB+ per photo in TIFF. I've been uploading them from my camera onto my hard drive and they end up just short of this required file size, around 46MB. Unfortunately a 1GB flash card full of Raw images, when converted to this size, eats up a lot of memory. I don't think I can use all the images for stock photography anyway so I started looking at how I can affect file sizes under "Image"-"Image size" so I can clear up some memory and I've noticed I can play around with the image size if I change the resolution. Currently the 46MB photos are at a resolution of 2000, if I change them to 300, the resulting file size is just over 1MB, which is great because the ones I can't use, I can still store at a reduced size and clear some space on the old hard drive. But I've noticed I can take the same converted 1MB image, change the resolution to 3000 and end up with a 105MB image. OK "So what's your problem?" you might ask. Well, where's all this extra resolution coming from? I can make it go up and down as I please and I have no idea how this is even possible. Shouldn't reducing resolution from 46MB to 1MB forever reduce the quality of the image? How is it possible to go back to the original size or even increase it?
When saving as a .png file, there is an option to enable/disable "save resolution". What is this option for? I've tried Googling, but no luck due to many unrelated search results.
I'm trying to create a high resolution version of a low resolution texture used in a game. I've found a pattern that I think is acceptable, from a real image.Now the question is this: how can I colorize the large image to that it is as resemblant as possible to the original one? I've tryed a simple colorize, but the result is not so good...
So I am making digital color prints at 24x30. the photography work is about color fields and gradients, so I need super high res files. I have set the size to 24000x30000 pix at 1000 dpi..now my problem, when i go to save the gimp file as a jpeg i get this error message "JPEG image plug-in could not save image"
Is it possible to add a custom paper size to Gimp? I have a new HP wide format printer and was looking for a capability to customize the paper size. Hewlett Packard and Microsoft have said that the customization of paper size is application specific even though Microsoft tells you can customize paper size through server properties , which on my XP machine will not save the custom settings.
Note: This page, even though it is not a Microsoft page, shows what Microsoft tells you to do. [URL]
Because brush size slider is really not easy control for tablet pen, Idecided to create some brushes (range from 1x1 to 9x9 ) for daily use.But I found gimp 2.8.4 does not change the brush size when I selectanother brush. How to make 2.8.4 not persist in prior size setting?
I've been experimenting with large font sizes on a base image of 2000x3000 pixels. I've been using a basic white type face on a dark gray background and adjusting the lightness and contrast of the white color to different levels. Also, I created the type as as png first and then brought into Gimp. When the image is at full size, the type looks fine, but when I shrink the image down, say a quarter of the size, the edges of the fonts get very jagged and look like they're breaking up.
Our 18MB 14-bit Canon camera produces RAW images (converted to uncompressed DNG) that are about 22MB. On a Win7-64bit CS6 workstation, the PSD file that is created from the DNGs has the following sizes (single layer, no masks/paths, maximum compatibility):
16 bit, DNG as smart object: 207MB (10x of the DNG)16 bit, DNG as rasterized layer: 187MB (8.5x of the DNG)8-bit (less information than the DNG), DNG as smart object: 115MB (5.2x of DNG)8-bit (less information than the DNG), DNG as rasterized layer: 95MB (4.3x of DNG)
a blank 8-bit image with a white background layer saves as 818KB, adding a few scribbles with the brush tool saves the file at about 30MB.
I would like to use pics from my digital camera on the web.How can I reduce file sizes for use on the web.Everyone seems to have a maximum file size when uploading.
I have exported photos to my harddrive as jpegs that are less than 1mb but when I try to upload them for an assignment on the school website they are 25 mb??
When i apply a preset to a photo, then export it ... the file i end up with is significanatly smaller than my original file ? These same presets resulted in as large / or in most cases larger files sizes in previous versions of lightroom ...
I work with 2 different Mac Pro towers. The one at my home has Photoshop cs4 and the one at my studio has Photoshop cs6. The other day I noticed that Finder on my studio computer shows the file size to be twice as big as the finder on my home computer. The pixel dimension size doesn't change, just the file size. It shows up that way after I save it on my studio computer. If I take that file home and resave it on that computer then the Finder shows the smaller file size again. I guess the questions I have are: Is the file size is actually increasing and if so, what could be causing that to happen? Photoshop shows the files to be the same size, but in the Finder window is where I see the difference.
I am using meta data "description" menu to add meta data to web images.The basics:title
description keywords copyright
That is about it for my application....so far and like I say it is just for web images at this point. At any rate to me surprise I did not realize how much the meta data added to file size.I had assumed it was minimal but in fact that is not the case. Meta data ends up adding a lot.
Question: So is there a way in Photoshop to see what the final file size will be with the meta data included as I have found, so far, is the image itself file size when I view the
"Saving for Web & Devices" menu screen.Also tried the "Info" menu and neither indicate the meta data additions into an images file size.
One of the reasons is, of course, that I would like to get as many keywords in there as possible, as an example lets say this was the logo or site's header and they have a lot of different products.
The more keywords the better the SEO results will be. I am sure this statement in itself is disputable but as of now 5/2013 it appears that way as far as SE's are concerned.Tested this extensively and the result were remarkable, but that is another story.
I recently upgraded from cs5 to cloud and all of my psd / psb files have doubled in size. I thought it might have something to do with the sync to the cloud, but I don't believe this to be the case. I messed around with the file handling section under preferences but nothing has really made any difference.
I'm on a Mac running OSX 10.8.3 and lately I've been losing presets when Photoshop CS6 crashes or I have some other unrelated problem. First it was brushes-I lost the palette of brushes I had built over years and had to drag in an old set from a networked computer. Then it was Workspaces; same tedious solution. Now, after I had to reinstall the OS two days ago, I've lost the custom size presets under File/New/Presets/Custom. But it isn't clear where these presets reside in the system: the prefs, the app plugins, or the settings. Where are they stored, and why all these preferences or presets seem to be more volatile in CS6 than they were previously? Or is this all a fig newton of my imagination?
I'm baffled. I do 99.9% of my photo work in Lightroom and then export to jpg. On the rare occasion when I need to remove something from a photo (a fly or leash), I have been using PSP version 9 because I already have it.
However, this morning I opened an 8 Mb jpgs file, did my editing and just saved it (no save as or resizing), and now the file is only 2 Mb.
When saving JPEGs, I seem to be getting wildly different resulting file sizes, depending on whether I've used Save or Save As. Case in point:
original file size from camera: 6194 KB
Save / Standard encoding / compression factor 2: 1875 KB Save As / Standard encoding / compression factor 2: 5184 KB
Save / Lossless encoding : 1875 KB Save As / Lossless encoding: 7235 KB
It seems to me that with x2 (my previous version), I could set the low compression factor, and the resulting Save file would actually be larger than the original. I want to be able to save with minimal compression (but I don't want to mess with TIFFs), and I need to know if I should now be using Save As instead.
Is this as designed, is it my imagination...what's going on?
Im currently trying to produce some banners that are quite large 80 inches x 34. I dont know how to scale that down to a managable canvas in photoshop but at the same time not loose any quality.
I have this drawing file that has suddenly been growing larger and larger in size. There has not been enough information added to justify such a large increase:
1. how do you make it so it is a multi-page document for printing? 2. can you have artboards that are different sizes as part of the same file? 3. what is the point of changing the order of artboards? 4. do you use extra artboards for coming up with ideas off of the main canvas? because it seems you could also do this just outside the boundaries of the main artboard.
My coworker and I both have the same version of Illustratir (CS6) and both use Lion on iMacs, but today noticed something weird. He saved a file similar to a file I had done before as both an eps and a pdf and his file size was more than twice what my file sizes usually are. I thought it was odd, so I copied everything from his file into a new file (same dimensions) and saved out an eps and pdf (default settings), and like I thought, my files were less than half the size of his.
Why would two machines be saving identical files at different sizes? Is there a setting somewhere I'm missing? Everything in the file is vector, if it matters. There's not even any editable text.
I am making very detailed artwork in Illustrator that ultimately has to be uploaded to a website as a pdf file. This artwork takes ages to save and when converted to pdf format, even at the lowest quality pdf, the files are huge. What is the best way to get the file size down? Turning the files into low res jpegs somewhat defeats the purpose of making detailed vector art in the first place.
The artwork has a lot of repeated elements that could be turned into symbols but I'm told this doesn't fix the problem of huge pdfs.
I am working on bringing files into Lightroom 4, most DNG files from a Canon 5D and DNG and TIFF files from a Nikon scanner. The problem I'm having is that after importing the files into the Folder in which they will all be for the catalogue, they are significantly smaller. For instance, a DNG file from a 6x9 film scan is 600MB in the original folder, then is 420MB in the new folder after being renamed and imported into Lightoom. Similarly, a 20MB DNG file from my Canon 5D is 8MB after importantion. Also, the backup of the original that is made upon importantion, remains at its larger size on my external drive. I do not believe that I have anything set in Lightroom to do this, the only setting I've touched in the import process are renaming the file, placing a backup, and adding tags. I am not doing anything in the development dialogue box. Is there a reason that these files are so much smaller? I'm worried because 30% decline in the case of scans is a lot of data, as if the 70% decline in my Canon 5D file.
I had read that when I convert to DNG in Lightroom (v4), the file sizes will drop by about 20% (I checked the check box for compression). I'm converting from a batch of 16-bit NEFs I created when scanning slides using the Nikon LS-5000 scanner. Those scans and files were created with Nikon Scan 4.0. After doing the conversion in Lightroom, the DNG file sizes are around 3MB-17MB. The original NEF files were about 135MB. Where in the world did all my data go? I'm concerned that the conversion to DNG threw away a ton of the original data. How is that much of a reduction possible? I'm hoping that there wasn't some catastrophic problem during the conversion, as I also checked the check box to delete the originals after the conversion is finished.
The image quality seems to be okay when looking at the DNG files in Lightroom.
I am having trouble with Lightroom 5 exporting images at incorrect file sizes. For example, if I use my export preset for images with long edge 2500 pixels and maximum size 1000k it is exporting images at 1500-2500k.
I do beer signs for a living. Sometimes I like to import other coreldraw files into my current work to take designs off of them, such as a curve or a portion of text. I then delete the unused parts. The problem is that whenever I do this, it makes the save file huge!
You can test this. Open an empty coreldraw file. Drag a few .cdr's into it. Delete everything you imported. Save the empty file. It will be the size of all those .cdr's combined!
