| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2007 06:34:57 PM · #1 |
Hi,
I am new to Raw conversion..started 3 days back and already in love with it.
But I have a small hitch, hence this question.When I convert my Raw,
I save it as a .psd file(or tif) with no compression, it blows up to 35 MB...My camera is D70 (6MP)...is it normal?
What do you do normally..save it with some compression or work with the 35 MB file?
Also, which one do you prefer as the format ? .psd or .tif? |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 06:47:57 PM · #2 |
Yes, it's normal to have a PSD file that large since it saves all the steps taken to produce the file.
My opinion, PSD is better than TIF. I've tried TIF, but there have been times that I couldn't do what I wanted and had to convert the file anyway, so why bother with the extra step? |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 06:56:55 PM · #3 |
Yes, its very normal to have large files, the more work you do the bigger the file.
I've had .psd files before that where upwards of 200mb,
let me tell you, working on a 200mb file with only 512mb of ram is not fun. :)
I only use .tiff when I'm printing something, because .tiff is uncompressed it makes higher quality prints, especially at poster sizes. |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 08:09:17 PM · #4 |
As others have posted, the large size is normal, especially if you're saving in 16-bit-per-channel mode. For uncompressed photos, it's easy to calculate the space required. Your camera records just over 6 million pixels, and each pixel takes 3 8-bit bytes to store (in 8-bit-per-channel mode). So the total file size is about 6*3=18 megabytes. For 16-bit mode, it's 6 bytes per pixel, so 6*6=36 megabytes. The reason yoiu see this as 35 is that a megabyte is slightly more than a million bytes, cue to a very old computer science definition of a kilobyte as 1024 bytes, not 1000 bytes. Confused yet?
For files where quality is paramount, saving in a lossless 16-bit(PSD, TIF) format is a very good idea. After all post-processing is complete, you can choose to save the final result as JPEG at very high quality. This will be virtually indistinguishable from the PSD or TIF, but at tremendous space savings. Because JPEG does not support 16-bit mode, you must convert to 8-bit mode before savign as JPEG. I do believe that JPEG 2000 does support 16-bit mode, however it's not widely used at this point.
Message edited by author 2007-04-22 20:13:16. |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 10:19:42 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I do believe that JPEG 2000 does support 16-bit mode, however it's not widely used at this point. |
7 years later... ;) |
|
|
|
04/22/2007 10:44:09 PM · #6 |
Thanks to everyone for replying so promptly...
The world makes sense again....I never considered 3 channels while calculating the file size..(Thanks to Kirbic).
DPC Rocks!!
|
|
|
|
04/22/2007 10:57:49 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by _eug:
... My opinion, PSD is better than TIF. I've tried TIF, but there have been times that I couldn't do what I wanted and had to convert the file anyway ... |
What can't you do in .tif that you can do in .psd? I'm curious. I've always saved in .tif which is a standard format and rarely ever use .psd
|
|
|
|
04/22/2007 11:10:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by mobster:
... I've had .psd files before that where upwards of 200mb, let me tell you, working on a 200mb file with only 512mb of ram is not fun. :) |
Try a files size approaching to 2 Gigabytes in Photoshop CS2 with only 512 megs of RAM. Now THAT is fun. LOL!!! That is what I did with this image that is a panorama of about 28 images:
|
|
|
|
04/22/2007 11:24:48 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by _eug:
... My opinion, PSD is better than TIF. I've tried TIF, but there have been times that I couldn't do what I wanted and had to convert the file anyway ... |
What can't you do in .tif that you can do in .psd? I'm curious. I've always saved in .tif which is a standard format and rarely ever use .psd |
On important prints... I always save all of my layers (in their various blending modes and percentages) together with the layer masks, etc. It's all there. I can always re-load it back into Photoshop to turn any layer on or off, reduce or increase how much it is used, adjust the mask etc.
While tif files can have layers, I don't think they can make all of that blending mode, etc, information. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 12:05:26 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by _eug:
... My opinion, PSD is better than TIF. I've tried TIF, but there have been times that I couldn't do what I wanted and had to convert the file anyway ... |
What can't you do in .tif that you can do in .psd? I'm curious. I've always saved in .tif which is a standard format and rarely ever use .psd |
On important prints... I always save all of my layers (in their various blending modes and percentages) together with the layer masks, etc. It's all there. I can always re-load it back into Photoshop to turn any layer on or off, reduce or increase how much it is used, adjust the mask etc.
While tif files can have layers, I don't think they can make all of that blending mode, etc, information. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) |
Like you I keep all the layers, etc. of my files whenever possible for the same reasons you do. I save my files as .tif from the very beginning and do all post processing on the saved .tif.
If there is something that .tif format can't handle in Photoshop I'd like to know what that is. I'm unaware of any feature of layers, adjustment layers, masks or anything else that can't be preserved in .tif.
Anyone have any specific limitations I should be aware of?
Message edited by author 2007-04-23 00:05:49.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 03:42:57 AM EST.
