Posted by Darren White on August 17, 2006 at 1:51 PM
I recieved an email from a printer, although it seemed like an honest email I think ti was a solicitation....Anyway....it was advertising prints up to 50x50 for cheap prices....
ok let me skip to the question at hand here....
it had recommended file sizes for each print size listed.....
How do you get file sizes to be 40, 80 or 100mb.... this is the part where I am gonna learn something I hope....
I shoot in raw....and convert to Jpg and when I am done editing, my final image is around 7mb. Now I know from experience that this will produce a nice print at 16x24....but what am I missing on getting the file size larger.....how many layers do I have to use? and what option do you use to merge all the layers?
If anyone can help me here I would really appreciate it....and I do thank you in advance!!!!
Darren
Posted by Ned Fenimore on August 17, 2006 at 2:44 PM
That may be an uncompressed Tiff or PSD file. Mine are in the 250-400 range unflattened. If you have something sized for printing, you might as well select edit - flatten layers in PS before sending. If I leave all the layers after sharpening, etc. some of mine at 16x24 or larger are a GIG or more..
Posted by Randy Hanna on August 17, 2006 at 2:44 PM
The larger the print, the less the need for higher DPI. If you maintain the same DPI for a large print that you used in your printing of an 8 x 10, your file size will be killer (read that very very large and not needed). First step: Flatten layers. Second save as tif and resize to desired output (never print from JPG). Third: reset your DPI to a reasonable value based on size (I use SI Pro2 for both of the last when I am going large). You will likely still have a larger than normal file size, but it should be somewhat manageble. I recently printed a 16.25 x 48, at DPI of 100 and it looked just great. Once I did the steps above, my file size decreased by more than 3/4ths.
Your next challenge wil be to get this file (larger than 7-8 mb) to the printer. Due to the way that POP email is designed, you will likely not be able to email this large file. You will have to use an FTP link of some time. Your printer should tell you how to do this. Be careful with FTP; incorrectly done, it will expose your flank to the internet like none before.
Darren: Since you are shooting Nikon, check out the new Nikon Capture NX. Built around and to compete with Lightroom, it is optimized for NEF images and you can send files directly to CS2 from inside NX with ease. I'm still refining how I will use NX in my new work flow but it looks great and fast. The only current drawback is that NX will not support the Nik line of filter add-ins. This will likely be corrected soon.
Randy Hanna
Posted by Curtis Knight on August 17, 2006 at 5:14 PM
Darren, a couple things that strike me as I read this thread.
DPI doesn't affect file size. it only affects print quality. I've tested this by saving the same file at two vastly different DPI's. no change in file size. It also does not affect screen display unless you go below 72dpi (or whatever the pixel density is for modern monitors). Anything over about 360dpi is just wasting ink as the human eye can't distinguish the difference.
second, I hope you keep your original RAW files, because you are losing a ton of detail by converting to jpeg. the only time your images should be saved to jpeg is for web display. jpeg compression doesn't come free. it costs information. the more you resave a jpeg, the more information you lose.
Most of my 6mp images are about 35mb when converted to PSD, and before I begin editing. they grow as I add more layers. Then when I flatten and resize for a large print, they are well over 200mb. your D70 is 6.5mp (?) so yours should be in the same size range when you're all done.
As for getting the file to the printer, I would mail a CD because of all the reasons Randy pointed out regarding electronic transfer methods...
Posted by Randy Hanna on August 17, 2006 at 7:09 PM
Curtis: I must be forgetting a step of six before or after DPI reduction, but in the end I do end up with a much smaller file. Could be that GF is helping; I'll have to look.
Posted by Doyle Thomas on August 17, 2006 at 8:21 PM
I think I got the same email, 50x50 Lambda prints for $125. Layers don't count for print file size as all is flattened for printing. You should convert your raw file to TIFF and do all work and layers in that format to conserve all resolution. Assuming that you want to make a 50" square print at 360 Dots Per Inch you will need 360x50 =18000 pixels on each side for a total of 18000x18000=324 Mpixels. Each pixel is 3 eight bit bytes in RGB (R=8 bits, G=8 bits, B=8 bits) so the total file size is 324 Mpixels x 3 bytes=972Mb file size. PACK A LUNCH to extrapolate to this much data. In PS you will get a better result if you extrapolate in steps of about 10% or look in to Genuine Fractals from OnOne software in Portland OR. This utility converts the file from a bitmap into a vector and does the extrapolation there. They claim 800% lossless enlargement, In the tests that I have done it does a better job than PS. It is true that you can get away with lower resolution in larger print sizes based on viewing distance. This is a decision you will need to make based on your own desires. You can extrapolate a file to what ever size and resolutuon you want and then crop out an 8x10 peice to print and compare.
Posted by Curtis Knight on August 17, 2006 at 8:32 PM
Man, I don't think my machine will even handle a 1gig file!
"Honey, how's the checkbook looking? I need some more RAM!" "Oh, and a new processor!"
Posted by Randy Hanna on August 17, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Curtis and Darren:
I tested this a few ago.
From a layered large print, I flattened all and resulted kept the 360 dpi.
When I reduced to 300 dpi, file size when to 196mb
At 180 dpi, file size was 70.7
At 100 dpi, file size was 21.8
Compression was done with SI Pro2.
Although I have used GF, before, and have only been able to get something like 300% compression w/o noise or junk. Only needed it once, so I did not use anything other than the trial version. It is currently included in a Nik sharpen package, so I might use it again, however, SI Pro2 does just fine for me.
How many people are going to view a large print up close? Not many. I reduce my largest print, so far, to 180 dpi and it looked great out of my Epson 4800 on MOAB roll stock.
Posted by Sean Watson on August 18, 2006 at 12:43 PM
First of all, take this with a grain of salt -- I've not tested this much. As a matter of fact, I'm something of a neophyte when it comes to printing, so please correct me where I'm off in the sticks.
I suspect DPI (dots per inch) is more or less the same as PPI (pixels per inch). I suspect there is a subtle difference, but I haven't found a reason to differentiate.
------ (details; feel free to skip) ----
The size of an uncompressed image is {the width of the image in pixels} times {the height in pixels} times {the number of channels} times {the color bit depth of each channel}. Since nobody thinks of a file size in bits, you generally need to divide by 8,388,608 bits/Mb (8 bits/byte times 1048576 bytes/Mb) to come up with something useful. There may be some padding (so a 100x100 pixel image might be 104x100 really with 4 garbage pixels tacked on to make the width a multiple of 8).
The {width in pixels} factor is {width in inches} times PPI. Same goes for height; {height in pixels} is the same as {height in inches} times PPI.
------ (end of details) ----
So when Randy cut his PPI by 1/3 and kept the width and height in inches the same he cut his file size by 1/3 times 1/3 = 1/9. (196 / 9 = 21.8)
When I want to change the PPI in PS, I generally select and copy the width in pixels, change the DPI setting in PS (which changes the pixel size) and then paste the pixel width back in (which changes the physical size) and then say OK. I'd rather I didn't have to do this, but I typically don't spend much time thinking about PPI/DPI so this isn't a problem for me.
Curtis, are you using the image size dialog when you change the DPI setting? If so, does it not change the pixel size when you change the DPI? I wonder if there's some preference setting somewhere that you have and I wish I had. If not, where are you changing this setting?
At a physical level, the printer spits out droplets at a certain resolution. That means that somewhere between PhotoShop, the OS, the printer driver, and the firmware in the printer, something's got to scale the pixels (and, with the 4800, do an 8 channel separation for each of the inks it has). I'm sure I'm missing out on some level of control in this process (or worse, exerting control I don't understand). There are other places in the pipeline where I think I should concentrate my efforts (like before I press the shutter release), but I'd be grateful if someone who's given this some thought could share. The main questions I have here are:
How and why do you pick a particular DPI do work with in PS before you print?
How and why do you pick a particular DPI in your print driver dialog?
Darren, my guess is that some of the printer's clients have a really good idea of what they want and don't want the printer to make what amount to creative decisions in the printing process. I suspect those customers are the most vocal. I also bet the printer's willing to load a PSD file, hit print, and make some reasonable choices in the print dialog for you as long as they're sure you're not going to object to their choices after their paper, ink, and time have been consumed. If you contact them and ask questions, I'm sure they'll be happy to explain how to pay them for their services . I think there are folks on the forum (Mark Hudon in particular) who are also willing to sell the use of their printer.
Thanks,
Sean
Posted by Curtis Knight on August 18, 2006 at 2:32 PM
I change the DPI in the image size dialog. yes it changes the pixel size, but in my test, both files were the same size.
I checked the file size in the properties sheet in Explorer... I'll try it again at home. maybe I did something wrong in my test.
BTW: I tested this with PDF, not TIFF. Randy, you're talking about compressed size... every time you compress a file, you're going to lose more data, regardless of DPI...
Posted by Doyle Thomas on August 18, 2006 at 7:04 PM
I scan 4x5 (3.6x4.5 actual) and 8x10 (7.6x9.5 actual) transparencys at 1600 dpi (the max optical resolution of my Epson 1680 scanner) for a file size of 118/472Mb. There is meta data attatched to a TIFF so actual file is a bit larger. My Epson 7800 has a native resolution of 2880 dpi, way small for the eye to detect but a multiple of 360. I extrapolate to 24"x30" at 360 dpi using GF which amount to a 2x enlargement apply a profile and print. Doing the same from an 8x10 and printing at 720 makes no visable difference on Moab paper. There is however a small but visable difference when printed at 180 dpi.
I have also printed to 24x30 from my Dimage 7 (5.3Mp) at 360 dpi using GF and they look suprisingly ok.
The image resolution should aways be set as a multiple of the printer resolution. This makes the math easy for the printer and it is not making the decision to add or drop pixels.
I make prints to be viewed for a long time. While digital printing technology has advanced a lot and while color and actuance approches (dare I say it) Dye Transfer you still can not beat
an Ilfochrome masked print for sharpness.
Posted by Darren White on August 20, 2006 at 4:29 AM
thanks to all who have contributed to this topic....
I honestly did not realize how much there was to creating a "master" file....
I have been shooting in Raw, converting to Jpegs and uploading them to www.mpix.com for printing....I have been very very happy with the results but I have never had a RAW file printed so I have nothing to comepare it to....
I do not print my images myself and I have never actually paid any attention to the DPI or PPI for that matter....
today I did play around a little and I did learn how to save an edited file as a RAW file and that did help with file size......I guess I really have a lot to learn on the printing and finishing side of photography....
I am off to shoot ghost towns tomorrow and this will give me a great opp to work some images and play with file sizes and all that other tech stuff...
thanks again everyone....I really appreciate it.....
Posted by Doyle Thomas on August 20, 2006 at 9:52 AM
If you try that cheap print place
LEMENO
Posted by Darren White on August 20, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Doyle.....I am NOT gonna try Lambda prints.....I am gonna stick with Mpix now that they have FTP transfers I can start having my raws printed to get a good comparison....
I just ordered a 16x20 of a 7.98 mb jpg file.....so well see how that looks....also...I am gonna get some new editing software.....to help get me on the right track
Discussion
13 repliesok let me skip to the question at hand here....
it had recommended file sizes for each print size listed.....
How do you get file sizes to be 40, 80 or 100mb.... this is the part where I am gonna learn something I hope....
I shoot in raw....and convert to Jpg and when I am done editing, my final image is around 7mb. Now I know from experience that this will produce a nice print at 16x24....but what am I missing on getting the file size larger.....how many layers do I have to use? and what option do you use to merge all the layers?
If anyone can help me here I would really appreciate it....and I do thank you in advance!!!!
Darren
Your next challenge wil be to get this file (larger than 7-8 mb) to the printer. Due to the way that POP email is designed, you will likely not be able to email this large file. You will have to use an FTP link of some time. Your printer should tell you how to do this. Be careful with FTP; incorrectly done, it will expose your flank to the internet like none before.
Darren: Since you are shooting Nikon, check out the new Nikon Capture NX. Built around and to compete with Lightroom, it is optimized for NEF images and you can send files directly to CS2 from inside NX with ease. I'm still refining how I will use NX in my new work flow but it looks great and fast. The only current drawback is that NX will not support the Nik line of filter add-ins. This will likely be corrected soon.
Randy Hanna
DPI doesn't affect file size. it only affects print quality. I've tested this by saving the same file at two vastly different DPI's. no change in file size. It also does not affect screen display unless you go below 72dpi (or whatever the pixel density is for modern monitors). Anything over about 360dpi is just wasting ink as the human eye can't distinguish the difference.
second, I hope you keep your original RAW files, because you are losing a ton of detail by converting to jpeg. the only time your images should be saved to jpeg is for web display. jpeg compression doesn't come free. it costs information. the more you resave a jpeg, the more information you lose.
Most of my 6mp images are about 35mb when converted to PSD, and before I begin editing. they grow as I add more layers. Then when I flatten and resize for a large print, they are well over 200mb. your D70 is 6.5mp (?) so yours should be in the same size range when you're all done.
As for getting the file to the printer, I would mail a CD because of all the reasons Randy pointed out regarding electronic transfer methods...
"Honey, how's the checkbook looking? I need some more RAM!" "Oh, and a new processor!"
I tested this a few ago.
From a layered large print, I flattened all and resulted kept the 360 dpi.
When I reduced to 300 dpi, file size when to 196mb
At 180 dpi, file size was 70.7
At 100 dpi, file size was 21.8
Compression was done with SI Pro2.
Although I have used GF, before, and have only been able to get something like 300% compression w/o noise or junk. Only needed it once, so I did not use anything other than the trial version. It is currently included in a Nik sharpen package, so I might use it again, however, SI Pro2 does just fine for me.
How many people are going to view a large print up close? Not many. I reduce my largest print, so far, to 180 dpi and it looked great out of my Epson 4800 on MOAB roll stock.
I suspect DPI (dots per inch) is more or less the same as PPI (pixels per inch). I suspect there is a subtle difference, but I haven't found a reason to differentiate.
------ (details; feel free to skip) ----
The size of an uncompressed image is {the width of the image in pixels} times {the height in pixels} times {the number of channels} times {the color bit depth of each channel}. Since nobody thinks of a file size in bits, you generally need to divide by 8,388,608 bits/Mb (8 bits/byte times 1048576 bytes/Mb) to come up with something useful. There may be some padding (so a 100x100 pixel image might be 104x100 really with 4 garbage pixels tacked on to make the width a multiple of 8).
The {width in pixels} factor is {width in inches} times PPI. Same goes for height; {height in pixels} is the same as {height in inches} times PPI.
------ (end of details) ----
So when Randy cut his PPI by 1/3 and kept the width and height in inches the same he cut his file size by 1/3 times 1/3 = 1/9. (196 / 9 = 21.8)
When I want to change the PPI in PS, I generally select and copy the width in pixels, change the DPI setting in PS (which changes the pixel size) and then paste the pixel width back in (which changes the physical size) and then say OK. I'd rather I didn't have to do this, but I typically don't spend much time thinking about PPI/DPI so this isn't a problem for me.
Curtis, are you using the image size dialog when you change the DPI setting? If so, does it not change the pixel size when you change the DPI? I wonder if there's some preference setting somewhere that you have and I wish I had. If not, where are you changing this setting?
At a physical level, the printer spits out droplets at a certain resolution. That means that somewhere between PhotoShop, the OS, the printer driver, and the firmware in the printer, something's got to scale the pixels (and, with the 4800, do an 8 channel separation for each of the inks it has). I'm sure I'm missing out on some level of control in this process (or worse, exerting control I don't understand). There are other places in the pipeline where I think I should concentrate my efforts (like before I press the shutter release), but I'd be grateful if someone who's given this some thought could share. The main questions I have here are:
How and why do you pick a particular DPI do work with in PS before you print?
How and why do you pick a particular DPI in your print driver dialog?
Darren, my guess is that some of the printer's clients have a really good idea of what they want and don't want the printer to make what amount to creative decisions in the printing process. I suspect those customers are the most vocal. I also bet the printer's willing to load a PSD file, hit print, and make some reasonable choices in the print dialog for you as long as they're sure you're not going to object to their choices after their paper, ink, and time have been consumed. If you contact them and ask questions, I'm sure they'll be happy to explain how to pay them for their services
Thanks,
Sean
I checked the file size in the properties sheet in Explorer... I'll try it again at home. maybe I did something wrong in my test.
BTW: I tested this with PDF, not TIFF. Randy, you're talking about compressed size... every time you compress a file, you're going to lose more data, regardless of DPI...
I have also printed to 24x30 from my Dimage 7 (5.3Mp) at 360 dpi using GF and they look suprisingly ok.
The image resolution should aways be set as a multiple of the printer resolution. This makes the math easy for the printer and it is not making the decision to add or drop pixels.
I make prints to be viewed for a long time. While digital printing technology has advanced a lot and while color and actuance approches (dare I say it) Dye Transfer you still can not beat
an Ilfochrome masked print for sharpness.
I honestly did not realize how much there was to creating a "master" file....
I have been shooting in Raw, converting to Jpegs and uploading them to www.mpix.com for printing....I have been very very happy with the results but I have never had a RAW file printed so I have nothing to comepare it to....
I do not print my images myself and I have never actually paid any attention to the DPI or PPI for that matter....
today I did play around a little and I did learn how to save an edited file as a RAW file and that did help with file size......I guess I really have a lot to learn on the printing and finishing side of photography....
I am off to shoot ghost towns tomorrow and this will give me a great opp to work some images and play with file sizes and all that other tech stuff...
thanks again everyone....I really appreciate it.....
LEMENO
I just ordered a 16x20 of a 7.98 mb jpg file.....so well see how that looks....also...I am gonna get some new editing software.....to help get me on the right track