This content has been marked as final. Show 37 replies
Are they Tiffs made from scanned film?
I have run into this problem.
Sometimes you can fix it by Purging the Cache for that particular folder or by opening and Saving As to a new name in Photoshop.
Good question about scanned. In last night's test, it is.
I decided to look into the possibility that file size figures in. I started with an image from a scanned neg, about 265 MB. It would not open in RAW. then I dropped a copy to 60 MB. Now it opens in RAW. I recopied the original and upped it to a 90+MB; it opened.
Now, I tried a different tack. I opened the 264 and cut it's size approx in half. No open. On the same reduced file, I cut it back again incrementally until I reached 105 MB still won't open. Curious, I cut it to the 95MB size, still won't open. I finally cut it to the 60MB size, still won't open.
So it seems that incrementally dropping file size from the same file is different that cutting the size immediately below some still unknown maximum before it will open in RAW. So far, cutting from 264M to 106M in one step allows the file to open.
Purging the cache made no difference.
So, is there a max file size RAW can handle?
Ok, here's a strange one.
I dupe the 264.8M and change the name. Save it. Won't open in RAW. Open the dupe file and cut it in half. Save. Won't open. Now go back to the original, dupe it, cut it in half then save and it will open in RAW.
So finally, attempting to find the magic file size, I did try to zero in on it. 132.4 opens 145M will not.
Any other perspectives?
Jeff, et al?
Purge the cache for the folder they're in...
There is no consistency as far as I can tell to this problem: some tiffs open while others won't even though they are the same size (16 bit and about 180MB) and were scanned in the same session.
The scanner software that you used doesn't appear to make any difference: I have had a few Tiffs that don't want to open from both NikonScan and SilverFast Ai.
The easiest way round the problem of these recalcitrant Tiffs seems to be to create a "New Scans" folder so that there are not too many files in there when you want to Purge the Cache of that folder and the rebuild is quick.
Purging did not work.
I forgot to post that.
In Bridge preferences, go to Thumbnails > Performance and File Handling > Do Not Process Files Larger Than and make sure you're set to a reasonable number there. I'm set to 999 MB.
I have it set at 500M Ramon.
I assumed this only referred to the thumbs, not the process itself. IOW I would not see a thumb for a 550M file, but it would open.
I kicked it up to 999, but no dice.
I routinely never open scans in ACR or LR directly-- mine go from scanner to PS directly, then I do a selective color (color cast removal) and crop If required) on them. Then save as Tifs and open in ACR from Bridge for more tweaking. Files under 25 megs I will sometimes tweak in LR, but nothing over that size. My wife can't live with me after repeated waiting for big files to 'load' in LR Develop :)
I have not had a single tif open refusal since adopting this workflow. Before I did every now and then. By the way, all my scanning is now in Sfast Ai.
Lawrence, you asked if ACR had a file size limit. Yes, 10 k pixels on any side--no more! PS is good for 30 K per side.
PS is good for 300K per side using PSB format...
Good one, Don. This particular file is 13603px on one dimension.
The 1/2 size (by file size) is 9617 on one size, and it opens.
Jeff, for us panoramic types, ask the RAW people to at least triple that number.:-)
Only out of curiosity: why are you processing a TIFF in ACR, not in PS?
I am a "panoramic type", however my wish is not an ACR for large images but a PS for faster processing; it gets boring, when the compressed TIFF is over 200MB. I am just working on one, compressed size 600MB, and I had to place scratch disks on external hard disks to achieve any progress, otherwise only reading took 1/2 hour.
>Only out of curiosity: why are you processing a TIFF in ACR, not in PS? >
Because it is so much faster and more efficient, particularly if you have a lot of photographs to edit, and it is totally non-destructive.
So my new routine is to first open all scans (which were saved as Tiffs) in ACR; do as much correcting as possible; then open them in Photoshop to do any special retouching that might be needed.
For those that don't know this, I photograph solely with film (color negative) which I process and then scan.)
I do a fair bit of that, but I do not do my own processing. What film sizes are you scanning and taking first to ACR? What resolution and file size?
Curious, because I would have thought that your last step would be ACR to incorporate the PS work along with the ACR work in the metadata within the tiff--the PS work is of course pixel changing, so do you resave as Tiff from there?
That. of course would take all the ACR non destructive changes out of the loop. That is why I do it the other way round--however, sometimes as a final step when a client wants some slight changes that can only be made in PS, I do that before making a derivative Tif--but I still have the bulk of the non destructive editing in the pre derivative working copy (minus the last little tweak).
I suspect I am missing something here :) It's early in the morning! Pre-coffee early, as well! :)
That is bass-ackwards, don, because in order to do that, all non-destructive edits have to be flattened before the tiff will open in ACR. If you do ACR first, using a copy of the scan, you can open the file after editing in ACR and continue in PS without ever losing the ACR edits as a non-destructive set.
Like Ann, I did my work with scanned color neg. I shoot 120 film. Now I do mostly digital.
I don't see the film scans as much of an advantage any more, primarily because the quality of color negs (and B&W for that matter) can't match a good digital file from my D80. The best scans I have are ones from images made up to about 2000. As soon as Technical Pan went off the market, it all started sliding downhill.
>I do a fair bit of that, but I do not do my own processing. What film sizes are you scanning and taking first to ACR? What resolution and file size? >
35mm, 120 (6 x 7), and 5 x4. File sizes are normally around 180 MB and up depending on required use.
I continue to use film because I can work quickly and easily with it; processing it myself is quick, easy and the cost is in pennies; and I just prefer purely mechanical cameras which don't rely on batteries.
This will be a red rag to a number of bulls (!), but I frequently find when I am in "Tourist Mode" that I have taken my shots and moved on while someone with a digital camera is still standing there (in the way of everyone else!) peering myopically at their little LED screen.
But the new ability to scan directly into ACR 4.1 (in effect) is a huge times-saver.
Like I said that was pre coffee :)
Let me have another go at it. Selective color in PS (opening from scanner).
Save. Reopen in ACR. Make numerous changes.
Now I have a Tiff with the bulk of my changes -- all those made in ACR--as non destructive--written to the header. I do it this way because there is simply no way I can beat the colorcasts from scanning negs in ACR--been there, and that is the long row to hoe to get it right. Selective color beats the pants off it any day--both in faster workflow and more precise control. Yes, the selective color is not non destructive. But it is always the first step.
If I do it the other way--ACR first, then open in PS for Selective Color--how does that work in PS stay non destructive.
Please tell me what I have been missing...or what screws are loose in my B/ACR install (or my head :) )
Ann, My d80 cannot compose on the LCD.
Try one (or a Canon, of that's your gig).
Batteries. Lat time I looked, my light meters use them. I gave up the Weston Master series many, many moons ago. In fact, on an extended trip to Alaska, I had to replace them, and the one in the prism was not available. Ultimately, I found where I stashed the lil' bugger! With the digital, plug in the charger and you are god to go.
Meters do use batteries but they are not so prone to sudden death as camera batteries for some reason.
And if a meter does go on the blink, one has a pretty decent chance of just estimating the correct exposure anyway.
I just prefer not to be entirely dependent on batteries anyway.
It's just a matter of the way that an individual likes to work and I am happier using film. As long as I can still buy both film and processing chemicals, I intend to continue to work that way.
You may be horrified but I don't want a D80 or a Canon EOS-1DS Mark II even as a gift!
>My d80 cannot compose on the LCD.
Surely you can chimp your shots?
>Yes, the selective color is not non destructive
Selective color too can be applied through an adjustment layer as well. This is about as destructive as the XMP embedded in the file.
Perhaps this is, what Lawrence meant with his answer "Layers" to the question "what have I been missing".
My Zenza Bronica is fully manual (no built in metering) but does not work w/o battery: the aperture and shutter are operated by battery (but that battery lasts a year long). This camera was young and relatively modern when I purchased it, perhaps for 28 years ago.
I'm sure that was what he was referring to, and if there was anything tentative about the colorcast corrections I do, that would also be my approach, but my goal is to stay as far from layers as I can because it slows workflow. Sometimes essential, however.
I used to be a PS addict, but the new ACR and LR (to a lesser extent)interfaces (and workflow speed) run circles around their big brother.
Please Adobe, modernize the PS Interface :) Pretty please :) It has needed it for years. I know that you don't HAVE to, because there is no close competitor coming up from behind hot on your heels. You've got the market by the you know what, so just do it to be nice to all us long time loyal customers--maybe as a Christmas present:)
> "Please Adobe, modernize the PS Interface Pretty please It has needed it for years"
What have you in mind?
(I thought they did, with CS3, but do you want to go a lot further?)
PS features are great, of course. But UI access to the simplest high use tools are all equally available with lesser used tools through an antiquated drop down menu (sub,sub,sub menus) system--and keystrokes, of course (if you can remember the ones for lesser used features.
Just for starters, the ACR or LR interfaces with Tabbed major sections and and subsections (w solo modes ala LR) design based on hi usage priorities would be vastly faster. LR, for example, does have drop down menus but its major features are all available through flying panels, tabs, sliders and, of course, keystrokes as well. It was obviously inspired by RSP, which, for what it did had a workflow centric interface par excellance.
The interfaces of ACR and LR for basic, high usage, features are a vast improvement over PS IMO. I do a lot of production work, and to me there is no contest between the later Adobe interface designs and the old concept still used in PS after umpteen years.
Uh, oh. I forgot what "chimp" means in this context. If it means what I think it means, that is shoot it and check the screen, yes, and at times, on the tripod I do, but hand held, well, I shoot, move the camera away and recompose quickly, a method I use and teach when doing non-linear seeing.
My layers comment was seen for what I meant. And I agree with Don. I tend to use ACR where I can as it is faster, more intuitive and has a couple of indispensables, mainly the color correction slider set. And, in sharpening, it is not amenable to overkill, so that initial sharpening doesn't get out of hand unless you force it.
So give me 30,000 pixels in ACR please, unless you mean ACR availability for Tiff as merely a toy.
Larry:<br /><br />I had to Google that usage of "chimp" as it has never entered my lexicon.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimping<br /><br />"Real" photographers don't "chimp"!<br /><br /><Ducking & running VERY fast!>
So I did get it right! :D
"Real" photographers don't "chimp"!
Especially when using a view camera!
Uh oh! I forgot Polaroid.
Polaroids are normally only for clients to re-assure themselves that there is nothing untoward being shown in the shot!
Like a naked lady hiding in the closet! :D
One that I do remember (from pre-Photoshop days) was a cigarette butt on a press-room floor (with all those solvent-based inks around).
None of us had noticed it but the CEO spotted it on the Polaroid.
If that photograph had been published, and OSHA had happened to see it, sparks would have flown literally.
Now we would just "heal" something like that to invisibility and highly volatile solvents are no longer used in inks.
Not having x-ray film at the time, I can't vouch for the contents of his office's closets.
I once shot a job for a timber frame supplier, ostensibly for advertizing. Once they saw the work, they made a second project from it... a safety slide show about the working conditions.
I was not aware at the shoot of these violations.
I understand that some of the workers were displeased with my work!
I bet they were!
You shouldn't go around taking those really sharp photographs of yours which show-up every detail of things like dangerous working conditions and shoddy workmanship.
You might get somebody fired .
Hey! That's what they said!
I think I may have found the answer, at least why certain TIFs of mine wouldn't open. When I looked in the Image Size, there were some that had p/cm instead of p/inch. So I changed them to ppi and saved them with the same file name in the same location. Then I purged the Bridge cache, quit Bridge, started up again and built it. Now they open in ACR.