Posted by Barry Vangrov on October 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Converting my RAW file to TIFF the file size at 300 pix resolution, 13" x 9" document size is 60 - 70 mb, which is a pretty big file to work with and store. What is the optimal image size to save TIFF files that will be printed so quality isn't lost but the file size is manageable? Will lowering the resolution to 150 or 200 without changing the document size but lowering the pixel dimensions (which drops the file size considerably) have any noticeable effect on the quality of the printing?
Mmmmm. I pretty much hate to cut file size for printing because in my experience that limits how large I can print. On home printers I work at 300 dpi, and cutting file size would cut me down smaller than 13x19 as max size. If that's okay with you, then by all means you can cut the file size.
But that may be more a reflection of my own skills (or lack) and printer. Our lab regularly makes much larger prints from our files and they're sensational. I just can't manage their quality.
So there's something going on there. I can't say whether it's due to their methods of image processing and file stretching, or their pro machines. But before cutting your file size I'd make real sure that you're satisfied that you can print as large as you want with the smaller files, however you manage it.
My instinct would be more to improve your file storage and machine speed to allow you to continue using and storing the larger size.
Posted by Richard Ditch on October 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
What are the other parameters of of tif file - 60-70 MB for a 2700x3900 pixel file seem way out of line.
8 bit or 16 bit?
Layers or flattened?
Uncompressed or lossless compression?
Checking a file on my drive at the moment: 4196 x 3106 pixels' 13MB tif. 8 bit, flattened, lossless compression.
I keep an unflattened 16 bit uncropped .psd file of anything I work on so I can go back and make adjustments if needed, and these can be 60-90 MB if there's an extra layer for noise reduction. But for printing I make a single layer 8 bit tif file.
Posted by Bill Brennan on October 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Barry, I like Richard's approach with storage on an external drive and a back-up drive. Keep all of the pixels that you can for images that have value to you.
I, too, would not recommend reducing the file from its native resolution. Hard drives are much less expensive than the forever loss of resolution and quality.
Posted by Barry Vangrov on October 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Good advice, thanks for the input. One other question: saving the TIFF as 8 bit instead of 16 makes a huge difference in the file size and, if I understand correctly, even the best inkjet printers can't distinguish the difference between 8 bit and 16. So is there any reason to save the TIFF as 16 bit if I have the orginal RAW file?
I'm a duffer compared to some of the master processors and printers on here, but in my experience color adjustments simply go better when working with 16 rather than 8. If you're satisfied with the color and never intend to go back for adjustment, I guess there'd be no foul in going to 8 before saving. Our lab never comments, whether we ship them 16's or 8's.
I would hope you are saving the ORIGINAL just as it came out of the camera. If so, then you always have an image to go back to, re-modify, and save as large as you can if you ever need a real large file. Otherwise, it is your general output that is a concern. If your output does not need a large file, then save in the lower formats. If you are serious, get as fast a computer and multiple storage options that you can afford.
Troup
Posted by Nat Coalson on October 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Always save your master working files at native resolution. 16 bit provides much greater headroom for editing and IMHO is well worth the doubled file size.
60-70 MB is not at all unreasonable for a master TIF but you will need large drives (500 GB+) as your library grows.
Depending on your software and workflow, you may find that you don't need to render TIFs for every image. Most of my master images remain as DNG (raw) in Lightroom. I can save derivative files and print directly from those DNGs, which are usually between 10-22 MB.
I have some layered TIF files that approach 1GB in size.
If you're conservative with the ned to make TIFs your workflow will be simpler and you will save lots of disk space.
But when you do need to save a TIF, make sure to keep the most possible data: native resolution, 16bit, ProPhoto.
When meeting last week with a graphic artist I've partnered with before and respect greatly, she wondered why the files were tiffs. That threw me for a loop!
I pointed out that the client had specified tiffs, and that we were looking at original capture. I had the sense to ask WHY she questioned the use of tiffs.
Her answer was new to me and a real kick in the gut: "Because sometimes there are problems with tiffs, most notably perverted files on later opening."
Whoa!
I asked about alternatives, and she said that psd's were much more stable and reliable?
Discussion
10 repliesBut that may be more a reflection of my own skills (or lack) and printer. Our lab regularly makes much larger prints from our files and they're sensational. I just can't manage their quality.
So there's something going on there. I can't say whether it's due to their methods of image processing and file stretching, or their pro machines. But before cutting your file size I'd make real sure that you're satisfied that you can print as large as you want with the smaller files, however you manage it.
My instinct would be more to improve your file storage and machine speed to allow you to continue using and storing the larger size.
8 bit or 16 bit?
Layers or flattened?
Uncompressed or lossless compression?
Checking a file on my drive at the moment: 4196 x 3106 pixels' 13MB tif. 8 bit, flattened, lossless compression.
I keep an unflattened 16 bit uncropped .psd file of anything I work on so I can go back and make adjustments if needed, and these can be 60-90 MB if there's an extra layer for noise reduction. But for printing I make a single layer 8 bit tif file.
Bill Brennan
Troup
60-70 MB is not at all unreasonable for a master TIF but you will need large drives (500 GB+) as your library grows.
Depending on your software and workflow, you may find that you don't need to render TIFs for every image. Most of my master images remain as DNG (raw) in Lightroom. I can save derivative files and print directly from those DNGs, which are usually between 10-22 MB.
I have some layered TIF files that approach 1GB in size.
If you're conservative with the ned to make TIFs your workflow will be simpler and you will save lots of disk space.
But when you do need to save a TIF, make sure to keep the most possible data: native resolution, 16bit, ProPhoto.
My tiff's go into the GB's! Personally, I would stay with the size and res and get a decent sized hard drive and ram which is cheap these days.
When meeting last week with a graphic artist I've partnered with before and respect greatly, she wondered why the files were tiffs. That threw me for a loop!
I pointed out that the client had specified tiffs, and that we were looking at original capture. I had the sense to ask WHY she questioned the use of tiffs.
Her answer was new to me and a real kick in the gut: "Because sometimes there are problems with tiffs, most notably perverted files on later opening."
Whoa!
I asked about alternatives, and she said that psd's were much more stable and reliable?
Anyone else ever hear such a thing?
Sign me "Konfoozed in Kodiak."