what’s the trick to working with large files, 200mb and up?

DW
Posted By
doug_winter
Oct 13, 2003
Views
418
Replies
10
Status
Closed
I have a large, RGB, 300dpi, 200mb, tiff image. I scanned a 6cmx6cm neg and I want the final output to be 23×23". Everything looks really good but it’s really difficult to manipualte the image. Burn, Dodge, retouch, etc. Is very slow and clunky. Is there a quick trick to working with images of this size? I’m using a Dell 2.4ghz processor with 512 RAM. I only have one hard drive so my swap file DOES reside on the same hard drive.
DW
doug_winter
Oct 13, 2003
I’m just going to output to an IRIS print.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 13, 2003
more ram. much more.
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Oct 13, 2003
Doug,

Over the years, the general rule of thumb that I’ve heard is that minimum RAM requirements for optimum PS processing is about 5 times the working size of an image. Adding in other overhead requirements for the O/S, applications, and background processes, as well as the max 75% RAM allocation in Photoshop (imposed by Windows limitations), I suspect working with 200MB images could easily justify having 2GB of RAM in your system, if your motherboard can accommodate it.

Regards,

Daryl
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 14, 2003
Then you certainly don’t need 300 DPI.

Bob
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 14, 2003
300 or so dpi is usual for an inkjet.

Daryl has the right approach. I also work with 6cm x 6cm, and run into the same problems, and I run a Gig. Even black and white uses Ram like crazy!

It helps to purge your history from time to time, and also, flatten the image to save ram. If you want to retain all the Layers, save the file with the layers, copy, flatten and continue.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 14, 2003
300 or so dpi is usual for an inkjet.

Not for posters. I’ve done some excellent large size posters at 125 dpi and the output was excellent.

Bob
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Oct 14, 2003
How large? My postere are limited to 13 x19, and I find 300 dpi still valid. I use a Canon S9000.

Years ago, Kodak introduced a "new and better" 4×5 emulsion. It was awful. When I checked into it Kodak said that the vast majority of images were 8×10, so they optimized for that size. You should have seem a 16 x 20 from that. Fortunately, Kodak heard us and reissued the earlier emulsions (Plus X I think, was the victim)

Don’t underestimate the eye’s greed for detail. I walked up to an exhibit of 6′ images recently which were unbelievably detailed, and I took off my glasses so I could look closer.
EI
Enrique_Ivern
Oct 14, 2003
You may get some mileage revising your workflow. I like to go back and forth, trying this and that until I am satisfied.
If you’re like me, try making a small copy and refining your procedure. Then the final stage will be running your refined procedure
on your big file. You might even try recording an action.
DW
doug_winter
Oct 15, 2003
Can I make a the image small like 8×8". make all my corrections. then in the final stage enlarge or change the image size to 23×23"? will that work?!
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 15, 2003
Doug,

You could record and action for the adjustments on a smaller image and then run the action on the larger image. The benefit would be that you don’t have the long wait time while you work since you can walk away and do something else. Unfortunately this will only work for global changes like adjustments and filters.

Upsampling will always loose quality over working at a higher resolution to start with. Although as many people have pointed out you don’t always have to work at such a high resolution, especially on large prints.

Have you tried test prints at different resolutions to find the best resolution to print quality ratio?

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections