BIG picture…

V
Posted By
vl
Dec 15, 2007
Views
258
Replies
6
Status
Closed
I’m doing what I’d imagine is about the simplest thing to do in Photoshop.

For setting up a tiling background, I created a 2 inch square picture. I’m filling it with one 72 point character from a dingbats font, changing the color, and adding a background layer of a different color.Two layers, that’s it.

Then I save it as a jpeg.

It is coming up at the lowest possible resolution as 1 meg in size in the estimate and 556k on disk. Any ideas how to make this a lot smaller? I can’t see such a simple picture needing a meg worth of detail.

Thanks.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

TK
Toobi-Won Kenobi
Dec 15, 2007
"Rev. Vegetable Lasagne" wrote in message
I’m doing what I’d imagine is about the simplest thing to do in Photoshop.
For setting up a tiling background, I created a 2 inch square picture. I’m filling it with one 72 point character from a dingbats font, changing the color, and adding a background layer of a different color.Two layers, that’s it.

Then I save it as a jpeg.

It is coming up at the lowest possible resolution as 1 meg in size in the estimate and 556k on disk. Any ideas how to make this a lot smaller? I can’t see such a simple picture needing a meg worth of detail.
Thanks.

Not enough info, what resolution (pixel desity)is the image? A 2×2 at 300ppi will contain 360,000 pixels.
A 2×2 at 72ppi will contain 20,736 pixels.
Each channel will contain the above number of pixels, if working in 8 bit RGB.So you can virtually triple the size of the file. (usually around 2.8 times depending on how a KB is calculated. 1024 as opposed to 1000)

TWK
V
vl
Dec 15, 2007
"Toobi-Won Kenobi" <Toobi-won > wrote in news:fk0ahq$b5b$1$:

"Rev. Vegetable Lasagne" wrote in message
I’m doing what I’d imagine is about the simplest thing to do in Photoshop.

For setting up a tiling background, I created a 2 inch square picture. I’m filling it with one 72 point character from a dingbats font, changing the color, and adding a background layer of a different color.Two layers, that’s it.

Then I save it as a jpeg.

It is coming up at the lowest possible resolution as 1 meg in size in the estimate and 556k on disk. Any ideas how to make this a lot smaller? I can’t see such a simple picture needing a meg worth of detail.

Thanks.

Not enough info, what resolution (pixel desity)is the image? A 2×2 at 300ppi will contain 360,000 pixels.
A 2×2 at 72ppi will contain 20,736 pixels.
Each channel will contain the above number of pixels, if working in 8 bit RGB.So you can virtually triple the size of the file. (usually around 2.8 times depending on how a KB is calculated. 1024 as opposed to 1000)

TWK

The resolution is at 72 ppi. I tried rasterizing the type layer and got the same results.

Shouldn’t the jpeg compression shrink this drastically since it’s just big blocks of one of two colors?

I know I’m pretty ignorant about this stuff at this point, but for example, I just downloaded a full color picture with much more detail from Picasa at 144×108 pixels and it saved as 6K.

Are they any options or other programs that could shrink this down? I don’t want to make it smaller on screen, just on disk.

Thanks!
TK
Toobi-Won Kenobi
Dec 15, 2007
"Rev. Vegetable Lasagne" wrote in message
"Toobi-Won Kenobi" <Toobi-won > wrote in news:fk0ahq$b5b$1$:

"Rev. Vegetable Lasagne" wrote in message
I’m doing what I’d imagine is about the simplest thing to do in Photoshop.

For setting up a tiling background, I created a 2 inch square picture. I’m filling it with one 72 point character from a dingbats font, changing the color, and adding a background layer of a different color.Two layers, that’s it.

Then I save it as a jpeg.

It is coming up at the lowest possible resolution as 1 meg in size in the estimate and 556k on disk. Any ideas how to make this a lot smaller? I can’t see such a simple picture needing a meg worth of detail.

Thanks.

Not enough info, what resolution (pixel desity)is the image? A 2×2 at 300ppi will contain 360,000 pixels.
A 2×2 at 72ppi will contain 20,736 pixels.
Each channel will contain the above number of pixels, if working in 8 bit RGB.So you can virtually triple the size of the file. (usually around 2.8 times depending on how a KB is calculated. 1024 as opposed to 1000)

TWK

The resolution is at 72 ppi. I tried rasterizing the type layer and got the
same results.

Shouldn’t the jpeg compression shrink this drastically since it’s just big blocks of one of two colors?

I know I’m pretty ignorant about this stuff at this point, but for example,
I just downloaded a full color picture with much more detail from Picasa at
144×108 pixels and it saved as 6K.

Are they any options or other programs that could shrink this down? I don’t
want to make it smaller on screen, just on disk.

Thanks!

The Picassa download was probably "saved for the web" and 6K is the compressed size so as to achieve faster down/uploads.Go to Image>Image Size and check the pixel dimensions.It should be around 43.5K 72ppi is not big enough to display text cleanly, especially at such a large setting.
At this size, your 72 point font will be around 1 inch in size and look a little jaggy.
You need to increase your resolution.
Open a new custom document at 2 x 2 inches with a resolution of 200-300 ppi and see how you go on with that.
Also, having two layers (text +backround)will also increase the file size somewhat, can you not flatten (Layer>Flatten Image)the image before saving? I’ve just done this, saved at maximum quality, and my attempt came out at 34K (size on disc) but the Image>Image Size showed a pixel dimension of 448K (400*400 *2.8)
Regards
TWK
V
vl
Dec 15, 2007
"Toobi-Won Kenobi" <Toobi-won > wrote in news:fk0pg6$r44$1$:

The Picassa download was probably "saved for the web" and 6K is the compressed size so as to achieve faster down/uploads.Go to Image>Image Size and check the pixel dimensions.It should be around 43.5K 72ppi is not big enough to display text cleanly, especially at such a large setting.
At this size, your 72 point font will be around 1 inch in size and look a little jaggy.
You need to increase your resolution.
Open a new custom document at 2 x 2 inches with a resolution of 200-300 ppi and see how you go on with that.
Also, having two layers (text +backround)will also increase the file size somewhat, can you not flatten (Layer>Flatten Image)the image before saving? I’ve just done this, saved at maximum quality, and my attempt came out at 34K (size on disc) but the Image>Image Size showed a pixel dimension of 448K (400*400 *2.8)
Regards
TWK

Before I got your QUICK response, I went back to the File New and tried using a background color instead of making a layer with a filled rectangle. It went down to the 10-40k range.

Flattening the layers worked as well. I had thought that converting to jpg would get rid of the layer but I guess not. Will try higher resolution to see if it makes a difference also.

Thanks for the help!
TK
Toobi-Won Kenobi
Dec 15, 2007
"Rev. Vegetable Lasagne" wrote in message
"Toobi-Won Kenobi" <Toobi-won > wrote in news:fk0pg6$r44$1$:

The Picassa download was probably "saved for the web" and 6K is the compressed size so as to achieve faster down/uploads.Go to Image>Image Size and check the pixel dimensions.It should be around 43.5K 72ppi is not big enough to display text cleanly, especially at such a large setting.
At this size, your 72 point font will be around 1 inch in size and look a little jaggy.
You need to increase your resolution.
Open a new custom document at 2 x 2 inches with a resolution of 200-300 ppi and see how you go on with that.
Also, having two layers (text +backround)will also increase the file size somewhat, can you not flatten (Layer>Flatten Image)the image before saving? I’ve just done this, saved at maximum quality, and my attempt came out at 34K (size on disc) but the Image>Image Size showed a pixel dimension of 448K (400*400 *2.8)
Regards
TWK

Before I got your QUICK response, I went back to the File New and tried using a background color instead of making a layer with a filled rectangle.
It went down to the 10-40k range.

Flattening the layers worked as well. I had thought that converting to jpg would get rid of the layer but I guess not. Will try higher resolution to see if it makes a difference also.

Thanks for the help!
Most welcome, you are.
TWK
TK
Toobi-Won Kenobi
Dec 15, 2007
"Rev. Vegetable Lasagne" wrote in message
"Toobi-Won Kenobi" <Toobi-won > wrote in news:fk0pg6$r44$1$:

The Picassa download was probably "saved for the web" and 6K is the compressed size so as to achieve faster down/uploads.Go to Image>Image Size and check the pixel dimensions.It should be around 43.5K 72ppi is not big enough to display text cleanly, especially at such a large setting.
At this size, your 72 point font will be around 1 inch in size and look a little jaggy.
You need to increase your resolution.
Open a new custom document at 2 x 2 inches with a resolution of 200-300 ppi and see how you go on with that.
Also, having two layers (text +backround)will also increase the file size somewhat, can you not flatten (Layer>Flatten Image)the image before saving? I’ve just done this, saved at maximum quality, and my attempt came out at 34K (size on disc) but the Image>Image Size showed a pixel dimension of 448K (400*400 *2.8)
Regards
TWK

Before I got your QUICK response, I went back to the File New and tried using a background color instead of making a layer with a filled rectangle.
It went down to the 10-40k range.

Flattening the layers worked as well. I had thought that converting to jpg would get rid of the layer but I guess not. Will try higher resolution to see if it makes a difference also.

Thanks for the help!

Just reread, converting to a jpg WILL flatten the image. Medication has just kicked in ;(
TWK

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections