Copy link to clipboard
Copied
From Lightroom I went to Photoshop to remove some blemishes on an image. I know I can do this in Lightroom, but out of habit, I right clicked on the image and selected edit in Photoshop). The original .DNG file was about 15 MB in size. The resulting .TIF file was about 92 MB in size. Why was it so much larger in size and is there a way to reduce that file size without degrading the TIF image?
mrdavie99 wrote
... I know I can do this in Lightroom, but out of habit, I right clicked on the image and selected edit in Photoshop)....
You answered your on questing in your OP. Old habits die hard. Firstly, storage space is inexpensive, so I don't worry about size if I get the image I am looking for. Secondly, I save Photoshop files as PSD rather than TIF. lastly, break that old habit; go to Photoshop only if Lightroom fails to give you the results you desire.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
So the only function in Photoshop was to remove a couple of blemishes?
Was the bit size of the TIF file unchanged on export ?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
With Lightroom the precess is streamlined. I tell it to edit file in Photoshop and when I exit Photoshop it asks if I want to save it back to Lightroom. It may be default settings in Photoshop.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
93,810 KB
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Tiff images are inherently larger, and there is nothing you can do about that. In the Lightroom preferences you can choose whether to save 16 bit or 8 bit tiff images. If you choose it 8 bit the images will be quite a bit smaller. However, they will still be larger than the original image.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I’ll try 8 bit and compare printed results.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Assuming that your original file's color depth is greater than 8-bit, you most likely will want to stay with a 16-bit TIF file. Turning on the loss-less file compression obviously helps. Personally, I save the files coming out of Photoshop as PSD files.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hey what result did u got after comparing with 8 bits?I m curious to know
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Haven’t tried it yet. 7 am CST. I’ll do it today.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
1. Original raw file: 15,579 KB
2. 16 bit Tif: 92,810 KB
3. 8 bit .tif: 46,423 KB
4. .psd (16 bit): 92,811 KB
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Those sizes are all typical. Whenever I choose to edit in Photoshop, I save the results as a 16 bit tiff image. I have enough disk space that I don't worry about the size of the file. The 16-bit file provides what I feel is the best image to work with in Lightroom. I do most of my printing at home. But if I choose to send an image to a lab to be printed I export a JPEG anyway so again, size isn't an issue. Are you running low on disk space? Is that why you have a concern about image size?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Disk space is not an issue (prepared to acquire more if needed). The reaction was if the raw fill contains all the information captured, then why is the .tif, or .pds for that matter so much larger? Having started with computer technology in the early eighties when 5 1/4" floppy disks were the standard (and sufficient for computer performance), it is just shocking to see such large file sizes.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Well, I have read two versions of a book by Jeff Schewe, Both books are excellent, and I learned a lot from them, but I still can't really explain it very well. A raw file is not an image file in any sense of the word. That is why Lightroom, or Camera Raw, or some other raw converter is needed to convert the image to an image format. JPEG, TIF, and PSD and other file formats are what they are. Unfortunately, that's the best explanation I can offer. Someone who really knows and can explain more completely might be able to tell you more.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
mrdavie99 wrote
The reaction was if the raw fill contains all the information captured, then why is the .tif, or .pds for that matter so much larger?
A raw file is one channel. An RGB file is three channels.
The rest is bit depth, and overhead in the form of adjustment layers, masks, alpha channels etc.
This is all normal and expected.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
mrdavie99 wrote
The reaction was if the raw fill contains all the information captured, then why is the .tif, or .pds for that matter so much larger?
Because "information captured" does not equal "information needed to encode a color image". Simply put, the Raw file contains essentially two items of information for each pixel: a.) the voltage output at that location on the sensor - which is proportionate to the intensity of light input at that location, and b.) the position of that pixel in the grid - from which can be inferred the color of the micro-lens in front of the sensel (pixel). In other words, what is captured and digitized is the intensity of ONE of the prime colors at each spot. One out of the three values needed for a color image. The Raw Converter makes an intelligent guess based on neighboring values in order to fill in the two "missing" values. That means that only 1/3 of the data comes from your camera. The other 2/3 comes from your computer.
"Having started with computer technology in the early eighties when 5 1/4" floppy disks were the standard (and sufficient for computer performance), it is just shocking to see such large file sizes."
That 92 MB tif indicates a 16 MP camera. Actually that sensor size for DSLRs seems well on its way to floppy disk heaven, with more than a few 40 - 50 MP cameras in the stores today.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Read post thread again. Info is there.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
A raw file is one channel at (usually) 14 bit depth.
After demosaicing and rendering into an RGB file it's three channels at 8 or 16 bit depth. So that's a x3 factor just from the two new channels.
A 16 bit file is roughly twice the size of an 8 bit file (disregarding metadata etc).
RGB formats may apply data compression to reduce file size from the uncompressed original.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
mrdavie99 wrote
... I know I can do this in Lightroom, but out of habit, I right clicked on the image and selected edit in Photoshop)....
You answered your on questing in your OP. Old habits die hard. Firstly, storage space is inexpensive, so I don't worry about size if I get the image I am looking for. Secondly, I save Photoshop files as PSD rather than TIF. lastly, break that old habit; go to Photoshop only if Lightroom fails to give you the results you desire.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I’m marking your answer correct as Lightroom does just fine allowing me to remove blemishes and tiny birds in distant views. In fact Photoshop is daunting to me when I try to post process with it in lieu of Lightroom. I’ve been plodding through Photoshop CC For Photographers (Martin Evening). I started to crop my image and got lost trying to lock it’s aspect. I know Photoshop is very powerful but I screw up images just trying to utilize its tools. It is sort of of like playing a computer-based car racing game and trying to avoid crashing into a wall, over and over.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
To put it bluntly:
If you worry about file sizes, you're in the wrong business.