I use CS5 on Win 7 64-bit. Today I learned about this option to disable file compression to speed up save time:
I downloaded the reg key and installed it. When I restarted PS to test it on a file, there was no difference in either save time or file size. The test file is a 300 MB multi-layered PSD file.
Thanks and regards,
Exactly what registry value did you change?
And is it Photoshop 12.0.x or 12.1 that you're using? That will make a difference in the registry key path you'll need to use.
Edit: I just looked - the registry files provided will ONLY work with 12.0.x.
Thanks Noel. The link I posted says it will work with v12.1, which I have:
"The attached plug-in for Mac OS and registry keys for Windows only works with the following versions of Photoshop:
But apparently it doesn't, so now what? If I launch reg edit manually, I can see the key it added under "Photoshop 12.0", and it's the only key there. There are several under "Photoshop 55.0", making me suspect that the 12.0 group was created only when I ran this reg edit script from Adobe. Should I move the key to the 55.0? And why is the wrong file on the website?
…"The attached plug-in for Mac OS and registry keys for Windows only works with the following versions of Photoshop:
- Photoshop CS5 (version 12.1 which comes with Creative Suite 5.5
- Photoshop CS5 (version 12.0.4 which comes with Creative Suite 5"
Much of the Adobe documentation could use some careful editing.
I bought Photoshop CS5 in the box towards the end of the release cycle, and the version on the install DVD is 12.1.
Just picking nits…
They lied. The .reg files only affect the 12.0 registry path.
The registry key you want is the one with 55.0 in it.
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
They lied? Those fiends! I hope they get real itchy at night..., in between their fingers and toes where it's hard to reach.
Noel, yes that was it, it needed to go into the 55.0 not the 12.0. Would be nice if the correct info was on the website, but whatever.
I just tested it and loads are nearly instant, saves almost as fast. Definitely 20X faster. Down side is my 270 MB test file became a 1.1 GB file! Oh well, I'd more rather save the time than the disk space.
So . . . no 8-bit speeder uppers eh?
And I always thought PSD were totally uncompressed files. Since when you toss them into a ZIP they get way smaller.
But this is interesting.
BTW, your smiley translates to this, in plain text: :^0 Nice.
A few years ago I did some basic filesize comparisons between PSD and TIF, as part of deciding which format to continue using. Here are my notes from that test:
07 Nov 2009
I then tried saving in .TIF format instead of .PSD format.
393 MB Initial .PSD.
941 MB (+548 MB!) No image compression, RLE layers.
963 MB (+570 MB!) LZW image, RLE layers.
937 MB (+544 MB!) ZIP image (compatibility warning), RLE layers.
393 MB (0 MB) No image compression, ZIP layers.
389 MB (-4 MB) ZIP image (compatibility warning), ZIP layers.
The above shows that uncompressed .TIF file size is massive compared to .PSD. Image compression for .TIF (either LZW or ZIP) has negligible effect on file size, while layer compression (ZIP) provides file sizes the same as .PSD.
Based on the above you can see that a TIF with ZIPed layers is the same filesize as the PSD, indicating that the PSD does have compression. At that time I found that the PSD file was much faster to open/save than the TIF file, so it seems that the PSD compression was speedier.
I suspect that the uncompressed TIF and PSD sizes would be about the same.
… a TIF with ZIPed layers is the same filesize as the PSD, indicating that the PSD does have compression. At that time I found that the PSD file was much faster to open/save than the TIF file, so it seems that the PSD compression was speedier…
For years I've been avoiding the TIFF format precisely because they take so much longer to open and/or save than PSDs or PSBs. This on a wide variety of Macs.
PSDs are RLE compressed in 8 bit/channel, ZIP/Flate compressed in 16 and 32 bit/channel.
And TIFF has options for how you want to compress - if you don't compress, it doesn't take long (but you get a big file). If you do compress TIFF, it usually takes less time than PSD or about the same.
Chris Cox wrote:
If you do compress TIFF, it usually takes less time than PSD or about the same.
There may be some other factors then because in my old test posted above, for compressed TIFF and PSD of the same size, the PSD was much faster to load/save. (16-bit PSD vs TIF with no image compression + ZIP layers, both 393 MB.)
…There may be some other factors then because in my old test posted above, for compressed TIFF and PSD of the same size, the PSD was much faster to load/save. (16-bit PSD vs TIF with no image compression + ZIP layers, both 393 MB.)
Over the years, I have had the same experience as FlightDeck.
During the last nine years or so, I have read with great interest comments to my posts to this effect by gurus Chris Cox and Jeff Schewe, both of whom extol the virtues of TIFFs. However, I was never able to find any combination of Mac, Mac OS and compression method that would allow me to duplicate anything remotely like the results each one of them describes with TIFFs. Especially the slow opening/reading process of large TIFFs is simply unnerving to me, more so than the time waiting for them to save—even if the latter operation is much of a factor now that we have the ability to save in the background.
I think FlightDeck is right when he writes "There may be some other factors then…", and I've never figured out what they are. I've spent wasted enough time trying to find said factors that I'm happy to continue to avoid working with TIFFs as much as I can and stick to PSDs and PSBs.
Wait, are we talking about flat files here? Does TIFF reliably maintain native Photoshop data - layers styles, etc. Like PDF's maintain Illustrator data when saved with Illustrator Editibility turned on. This can nearly double PDF sizes.
I only use TIFFs for raster production files. When I create something for print, in Photoshop, I'll output a TIFF, with default settings, to be used for print. PDF's for Illustrator production files.
TIFF does maintain layer data like a PSD if you save layer data.
And it's written the same way as a PSD and takes the same time as a PSD.
The only time we've seen TIFF be slower is when someone has a HUGE tiff written by another application as a single block of compressed data (which requires huge memory buffers to read).
Wait, are we talking about flat files here?…
Mathias 17, your post appears as a reply to me, but that seems unlikely, since I'm stating that I avoid using TIFFs:
"I've spent wasted enough time trying to find said factors that I'm happy to continue to avoid working with TIFFs as much as I can and stick to PSDs and PSBs."
Just in case, my own experience with TIFF slowness in opening refers to both flat and layered files.
Noel, you are a genius! I usually work with large files and have been struggling to get uncompressed PSB to work but was never succeeded. Thank you for pointing out the right place to modify registry. Adobe should have made the little reg mod to be placed in both 12 and 55, which was what I did manually. The way Adobe deviced the registry name is also very mindboggling. They use a negative word to define a function, making deciding "on" or "off" quite confusing in logic. I had an online chat with an Adobe technician and he had no idea what I was looking for. I was told in CS6 you can save tif file larger than 4GB, which must be some good news.
Europe, Middle East and Africa