Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Best way to reduce a big MGDB file?  (Read 2555 times)
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« on: December 29, 2009, 12:04:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The files from MFDB ( and DSLR ) gets bigger and bigger, but for
the most part the end result is a A5 to A3 size file or websize.

Whats the best way to reduce size and keep the IQ.

Willow


Sorry, cannot edit wrong spelling in heading  
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 12:08:14 PM by Willow Photography » Logged

Willow Photography
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2009, 12:29:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Willow Photography
Whats the best way to reduce size and keep the IQ.

I assume you mean the file size and not the number of pixels?

It really depends on your work flow and the amount of retouching etc. I assume you are shooting in RAW and have a lossless workflow to begin with. RAW files are generally a lot smaller than TIFFs so you could keep the RAW files and not the TIFFs, assuming there is very little processing to be lost.

If you want to keep more processed images, the next question is really do you need lossless compression or is a smaller, lossy file acceptable? There still doesn't seem to be a viable mainstream alternative to beat JPEGs for lossy compression. Just choose the quality/size ratio which suits best. If you want to keep the maximum quality, you could try comparing the size of TIFF files saved with lossless compression (e.g. LZW) or simply try zipping the TIFF file.

Other simple space savers are cropping unnecessary parts of an image out, and converting from 16 bit to 8 bit (after post processing).
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2009, 01:25:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Graham Mitchell
I assume you mean the file size and not the number of pixels?

It really depends on your work flow and the amount of retouching etc. I assume you are shooting in RAW and have a lossless workflow to begin with. RAW files are generally a lot smaller than TIFFs so you could keep the RAW files and not the TIFFs, assuming there is very little processing to be lost.

If you want to keep more processed images, the next question is really do you need lossless compression or is a smaller, lossy file acceptable? There still doesn't seem to be a viable mainstream alternative to beat JPEGs for lossy compression. Just choose the quality/size ratio which suits best. If you want to keep the maximum quality, you could try comparing the size of TIFF files saved with lossless compression (e.g. LZW) or simply try zipping the TIFF file.

Other simple space savers are cropping unnecessary parts of an image out, and converting from 16 bit to 8 bit (after post processing).

Good advice above. To elaborate, workflow dependent on Lightroom editing takes an order of a magnitude less space than pixel-level editing in PS. Also, PS Smart Filters should have the same benefit, although I haven't investigated this.

Here's a topical article, one of my favorite articles on post-processing: Erase, merge and flatten. I used to be fastidious at saving every single step which resulted in multi-gig files out of original weighing only tens or a few hundred megs. While I still don't erase, merge and especially flatten in abandon, I take a look at what I imagine might come useful later.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 01:26:39 PM by feppe » Logged

Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2009, 03:03:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John-S
I think he just wants ideas/suggestions about methods of downsizing files for final output.


Jepp, thats what I need.

When I am finished with my photoshoping, how to preserve this
beautiful MFDB file that I pay so much to create  

Logged

Willow Photography
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2009, 10:47:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I normally keep the full size photoshopped TIF as Masterfile.  From this I reduce the dimensions to whatever size the file needs to be used at within Photoshop Image->Size->
From here, I then sharpen the file at that resolution. If I need to convert to CMYK, then I would skip the sharpening until I have finished the conversion.  Don't really know if that's what you wanted to hear Willow.

Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2009, 11:05:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Willow Photography
The files from MFDB ( and DSLR ) gets bigger and bigger, but for
the most part the end result is a A5 to A3 size file or websize.

Whats the best way to reduce size and keep the IQ.

Willow


Sorry, cannot edit wrong spelling in heading  

For output sizing and sharpening large files for the Web, this process seems to work very well: http://www.foliolink.com/resources_articles/tucker.asp
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2009, 08:51:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I find that when I do a one step downsize to websize, that Photoshop creates softer images and sometimes aliased diagonals, a big deal since I shoot architecture.

I have created two Photoshop actions that downsize my P65+ Tiffs in 10% steps (one for horizontals, one for verticals).  This has provided me with the best quality for web portfolio.  I then duped the actions and threw out the bottom half of the steps which left me with a nice print  size.  All this makes it easy to put multiple size files on a disc (which clients appreciate)

From there, sharpening is up to you, and of course sRGB.

Best,

CB

First Image is one step downsize, second is incremental (better sharpness and contrast... neither was sharpened)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 08:53:25 AM by CBarrett » Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2009, 11:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
I find that when I do a one step downsize to websize, that Photoshop creates softer images and sometimes aliased diagonals, a big deal since I shoot architecture.

I have created two Photoshop actions that downsize my P65+ Tiffs in 10% steps (one for horizontals, one for verticals).  This has provided me with the best quality for web portfolio.  I then duped the actions and threw out the bottom half of the steps which left me with a nice print  size.  All this makes it easy to put multiple size files on a disc (which clients appreciate)

From there, sharpening is up to you, and of course sRGB.

Best,

CB

First Image is one step downsize, second is incremental (better sharpness and contrast... neither was sharpened)

How do you down-size in one step? I thought that the bicubic sharpener was meant to make this approach superfluous.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2010, 01:32:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Willow Photography
When I am finished with my photoshoping, how to preserve this
beautiful MFDB file that I pay so much to create  
MFDBs cost money and produce quality files, but DSLRs with Anti-aliasing filters... and, if the AA filter spreads the light destined for one pixel over the neighbouring pixels... 9 pixels in all... you can reduce your pixel count by about a factor of ten without drastically reducing the quality - this is why a 2 Mpx HD TV screen looks as good as a 20Mpx DLSR pic.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Willow Photography
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2010, 01:07:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
MFDBs cost money and produce quality files, but DSLRs with Anti-aliasing filters... and, if the AA filter spreads the light destined for one pixel over the neighbouring pixels... 9 pixels in all... you can reduce your pixel count by about a factor of ten without drastically reducing the quality - this is why a 2 Mpx HD TV screen looks as good as a 20Mpx DLSR pic.


 So what you say is that reducing a DSLR file is less damaging than reducing a MFDB file??
Logged

Willow Photography
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2010, 01:27:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Willow Photography
So what you say is that reducing a DSLR file is less damaging than reducing a MFDB file??
...yes... the per pixel quality of a DSLR picture is such that you have less to lose in reducing the pixel count.

If you have a good MFDB file you can reduce pixel count by cropping, but if you shot what you wanted in the first place, it does not help.

Perhaps the ideal camera for web work is a very early low-res MFDB? ... or perhaps a 3 CCD cine-type system?

...of course, if you have a quality MFD file you have options.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad