Absurdly huge files

[Dilznik]

Hi,

I was wondering what you guys do all your scanning at? I've tried both 3200 and 6400dpi on my Epson V600 (it's mostly for testing results, like a digital contact page) and the files it produces totally bog my laptop down when I try to do something with them in Perfect Photo Suite 8, for example. 18 megapixel digital files from my Olympus are no problem so it's surely the size of these files.

I'm using a MacBook Pro with 8gb ram, a hybrid drive, and 512mb video ram.

Does anyone else have this kind of problem? Maybe I'm doing it wrong and should expose my photos properly so I don't have a need for post-production.

[Mark Stahlke]

Your scanning resolutions are beyond your scanner's optical resolution. Scanning at 1200dpi would give you manageable file sizes with no loss of real detail.

[djdister]

A little more detail - are you scanning at 8 bit or 16 bit, and what are the resulting file sizes? And why are you scanning them at 3200 or 6400 dpi? You would only need to do that if you needed to print a scanned image to 10 or 20 times larger than the actual size (because printing resolution would be 300 or 320 dpi).

[Ken Lee]

Your scanning resolutions are beyond your scanner's optical resolution. Scanning at 1200dpi would give you manageable file sizes with no loss of real detail.

Indeed.

There has been a lot of discussion of these Epson flatbed scanners on this forum over the years and the general consensus is that the best they can do is between 1600-2400 dpi (depending on who you ask).

[Lenny Eiger]

I regularly work with field anywhere from about 750 mb to 5Gigs. I use PhotoShop CS6. I think things over 5Gigs are "absurdly huge". (I have done some, that were anywhere from 15-35Gigs. Truly annoying.)

Lenny

[Nathan Potter]

I agree that around 1500 spi gives about all the real detail you're going to get from an Epson V750. A V600 I'm not sure, but probably even less than the V750. I regularly scan at 2400 spi using an Epson V750 and the file size for a 4X5 chrome is 210 MB at 16 bit. I'm guessing your file size should be even less and not a large problem using 8 Gig of RAM unless something else in your system is not up to par.

BTW I recently posted an MTF plot for the Epson V750 pro on the Lounge here along with a plot for the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED machine (35 mm. scanner). I'm guessing that the V600 falls somewhere below the V750 in contrast/resolution. The equivalent spot size for the V750 is around 30 µm at 100% contrast; the V600 somewhat larger but I don't know how much so.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Leigh]

Realize that every time you double the scan resolution you quadruple the size of the resulting file.

Suppose you scan an image at 600 dpi and get a 10 Megabyte file (as an example)...
If you scan the same image at 1200 dpi your file will be 40 Megabytes.
If you scan the same image at 2400 dpi your file will be 160 Megabytes.
If you scan the same image at 4800 dpi your file will be 640 Megabytes.
If you scan the same image at 9600 dpi your file will be 2560 Megabytes.

The file size is entirely your choice, not the choice of the scanner.

- Leigh

[Darin Boville]

Looking strictly at image quality factors--putting aside the troubles with large files, etc--is there any reason not to scan at the scanner's max? That is, is there any hit on quality to set it higher than the suggestions here--or just no perceived gain?

Any reason to think that scanning at the scanner's max and then downsampling to your needed resolution is better/worse than scanning it at that resolution to begin with?

--Darin

[Leigh]

is there any reason not to scan at the scanner's max?
Hi Darin,

No reason I can think of.

It's a question of which software gives the most accurate down-sampled image, that in the scanner or a separate program that you have.

I always scan at max resolution and save the resulting file as a TIFF (lossless, not compressed).
That way I can always revert to the original image if subsequent manipulation does not produce the desired result.

- Leigh

[Darin Boville]

I always scan at max resolution and save the resulting file as a TIFF (lossless, not compressed).
That way I can always revert to the original image if subsequent manipulation does not produce the desired result.

- Leigh

That's what I do, too. I figure any inconveniences of file size and software speed will only diminish over time. And I hate scanning so why not do it just once...

--Darin

[djdister]

Any reason to think that scanning at the scanner's max and then downsampling to your needed resolution is better/worse than scanning it at that resolution to begin with?

--Darin

Well, first off, you mean scanning at the scanner's max optical resolution, not the highest possible interpolated resolution, right? Still, I'm not fully convinced that I should scan all of my LF negatives at 2400dpi, which would almost always have to be downsampled before printing (or, just sending a file at a resolution much higher than the printer can handle and let the printer software downsample it).

I guess someone would have to show me (and not mathematically, but with real physical print examples) why scanning an 8x10 neg at 2400/3200/6400dpi or higher is any better than scanning it at 1440dpi, when I am aiming for making a 16x20 inch print at 720dpi.

[Leigh]

I figure any inconveniences of file size and software speed will only diminish over time.
Me too.

I have 4 Terabytes of storage on this computer, and can add another 4 or 8 TB if I choose to do so.

- Leigh

[Darin Boville]

Well, first off, you mean scanning at the scanner's max optical resolution, not the highest possible interpolated resolution, right? Still, I'm not fully convinced that I should scan all of my LF negatives at 2400dpi, which would almost always have to be downsampled before printing (or, just sending a file at a resolution much higher than the printer can handle and let the printer software downsample it).

I guess someone would have to show me (and not mathematically, but with real physical print examples) why scanning an 8x10 neg at 2400/3200/6400dpi or higher is any better than scanning it at 1440dpi, when I am aiming for making a 16x20 inch print at 720dpi.

Right. I'm with you on the optical vs interpolated issue. Also generally agree with the real world results preference since we are testing real world performance of systems--the more direct and complete the test the better.

--Darin

[Jac@stafford.net]

I always scan at max resolution and save the resulting file as a TIFF (lossless, not compressed).

TIFF compression (LZW and ZIP) are lossless, and fast, so why not use one - at least to archive an original scan?

[Dilznik]

So I'll admit the V600 isn't the greatest. It was cheap. I'm not going to print a 6 foot wide print using it (This is for 6x17 by the way). When I scan at 3200 I get a file of about 150-180mb which to me was absurdly large compared to the 18ish I get with digital. At 6400 it's 500-600mb. I haven't tried 1200 because I thought higher numbers were better. Also I figured if my laptop was choking on something this big, then when I get an Imacon scan done at my lab then I'll still have the same problems.
As far as the scans from the V600 they're really just to see how my shots look and maybe print up to 12x36".

[Sibben]

Those sizes sound pretty reasonable for files of that size but as someone mentioned it's a good idea to make sure you use TIFF compression. The reason they seem so large in comparison to digital is because they are indeed much larger. We tend to forget that images are square; i.e. an image that is 2048 on each side is not twice the size of a 1024...it is four times the size. At least I forget it all the time. :)

[Dilznik]

So if everyone else is getting scans this large and no one else is having an issue, maybe it's my laptop. Or software incompatibilities or something.

[Leigh]

I'm also running a MacBook Pro with 8 GB of RAM, just like you.

I have an external 4 Terabyte Western Digital hard drive connected via fast Firewire. It works very well.

- Leigh

[Darin Boville]

So if everyone else is getting scans this large and no one else is having an issue, maybe it's my laptop. Or software incompatibilities or something.

All I can say is max out your RAM--and sort get used to it (the slowness). That my strategy in any event. :)

--Darin

[gregmo]

All I can say is max out your RAM--and sort get used to it (the slowness). That my strategy in any event. :)

--Darin

I agree. Max out the RAM first since its a pretty cheap route to try. I typically edit drum scans in the 1-6GB range I have no issues. I use a desktop with 32GB RAM & SSD with several external HD's for backup storage.

[Ken Lee]

So if everyone else is getting scans this large and no one else is having an issue, maybe it's my laptop. Or software incompatibilities or something.

Everyone else isn't getting scans that size. People do have issues with large files.

Photoshop makes it possible to work with very large files even if you don't have a lot of RAM: you might find this article helpful: Turbocharge Your Photoshop (http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/03/turbocharge-your-photoshop/). It's written by Tim Parkin, one of our forum members (who has his own forum too).

[bob carnie]

I have always been disappointed with the brush size limitation in PS with files sizes 500mb and larger, I like using a very large brush for edge burning applications and never able to get the size large enough which gives me a somewhat blotchy burn if I am not really careful.

[Greg Miller]

So if everyone else is getting scans this large and no one else is having an issue, maybe it's my laptop. Or software incompatibilities or something.

A good rule of thumb is to have Ram => file size x 10/ So if you commonly work with 1GB files, you should have 10GB RAM. I have 16GB of RAM and rarely have problems with very large files.

[Greg Miller]

I have always been disappointed with the brush size limitation in PS with files sizes 500mb and larger, I like using a very large brush for edge burning applications and never able to get the size large enough which gives me a somewhat blotchy burn if I am not really careful.

It's a pain, but you could duplicate your file, downsize it, do your brush work (with a brush size that you like) on a layer mask, up-size back to the original size, then copy your layer mask back the the original file (you can save it as an alpha channel and then load the alpha channel in the original file). That doesn't work well with image pixels, but interpolating layer masks is pretty free of problems.

[Dilznik]

Interesting. I use Aperture and Perfect Photo Suite 8. I have no issues in Aperture unless the files are over 500mb. All my issues are in Perfect Photo. I wonder if the effects changes are building a new layer in the same resolution each time.

My MBP is maxed out with the 8gb =( I was thinking of trying an SSD in case it was the swap files/ virtual memory that was killing me.

[bob carnie]

Thanks Greg- I may have to see if a action could be created that does this quickly on the fly so to speak so I can do all the brush work at one time and then move back up.
this makes quite a bit of sense, I think WCImaging had something like this on their site, and the link provided by Ken seems to be somewhat the same.

I wonder why there is a limitation on the brush size... Adobe fix it please, we are seeing larger files all the time, I just purchased a nice Creo Eversmart and I can get some pretty large files.


It's a pain, but you could duplicate your file, downsize it, do your brush work (with a brush size that you like) on a layer mask, up-size back to the original size, then copy your layer mask back the the original file (you can save it as an alpha channel and then load the alpha channel in the original file). That doesn't work well with image pixels, but interpolating layer masks is pretty free of problems.

[Greg Miller]

Thanks Greg- I may have to see if a action could be created that does this quickly on the fly so to speak so I can do all the brush work at one time and then move back up.
this makes quite a bit of sense, I think WCImaging had something like this on their site, and the link provided by Ken seems to be somewhat the same.

I wonder why there is a limitation on the brush size... Adobe fix it please, we are seeing larger files all the time, I just purchased a nice Creo Eversmart and I can get some pretty large files.

Another option that is easier, but not as intuitive, is to (temporarily) duplicate the background layer, change the duplicate layer to a Smart Object, Free Transform and size it down, create a layer mask on the smart opbejct and do your painting, free transform and size the smart object back to the original size (the layer mask gets re-sized along with the pixels), drag the layer mask to the adjustment layer that actually needs the mask, delete the duplicate layer.

[bob carnie]

Is there any loss of quality? I can see setting up actions on both sides of the painting, should be pretty quick.. thanks dude
Another option that is easier, but not as intuitive, is to (temporarily) duplicate the background layer, change the duplicate layer to a Smart Object, Free Transform and size it down, create a layer mask on the smart opbejct and do your painting, free transform and size the smart object back to the original size (the layer mask gets re-sized along with the pixels), drag the layer mask to the adjustment layer that actually needs the mask, delete the duplicate layer.

[Greg Miller]

Is there any loss of quality? I can see setting up actions on both sides of the painting, should be pretty quick.. thanks dude

The Smart Object preserves all original pixels, so you can repeatedly re-size the Smart Object layer all day long and never create any interpolation when you go back to the original size. But you are throwing away the pixel layer and only using the mask at the end, so the resizing of the ask is no different than the first option that I mentioned.

[Greg Miller]

I wonder why there is a limitation on the brush size... Adobe fix it please, we are seeing larger files all the time, I just purchased a nice Creo Eversmart and I can get some pretty large files.

Just curious what version of PS you are using and what your max brush size is. I'm using CS6 and have a max brush size of 5,000 pixels. That means I could have a 20,000 x 20,000 pixel image and have the brush cover 1/4 of the image.

[Lenny Eiger]

Just curious what version of PS you are using and what your max brush size is. I'm using CS6 and have a max brush size of 5,000 pixels. That means I could have a 20,000 x 20,000 pixel image and have the brush cover 1/4 of the image.

It sounds to me like these kinds of dodge and burn should be done on a layer, for one (not with he dodge and burn tool) and 2, if you are burning that large, it should probably not be burnt at all. It should be done with a curve adjustment layer and a mask. Gradation masks work nicely for this as well.


Lenny

[Greg Miller]

It sounds to me like these kinds of dodge and burn should be done on a layer, for one (not with he dodge and burn tool) and 2, if you are burning that large, it should probably not be burnt at all. It should be done with a curve adjustment layer and a mask. Gradation masks work nicely for this as well.


Lenny

If you read my posts, I was also doing this work on an adjustment layer, although indirectlty in option #2 but the mask eventually ends up on the adjustment layer. My impression is that Bob was speaking of dodging and burning in a general sense, not the doge and burns tools in PS. He seesm like a pretty smart guy and I seriously doubt he is using dodge and burn tools. I have always instructed people to avoid the actual dodge and burn tools in PS.

[Lenny Eiger]

If you read my posts, I was also doing this work on an adjustment layer, although indirectlty in option #2 but the mask eventually ends up on the adjustment layer. My impression is that Bob was speaking of dodging and burning in a general sense, not the doge and burns tools in PS. He seesm like a pretty smart guy and I seriously doubt he is using dodge and burn tools. I have always instructed people to avoid the actual dodge and burn tools in PS.

I replied to your post, but I was making a general statement, it wasn't directed at you...

Lenny

[Greg Miller]

I have always been disappointed with the brush size limitation in PS with files sizes 500mb and larger, I like using a very large brush for edge burning applications and never able to get the size large enough which gives me a somewhat blotchy burn if I am not really careful.

Just another quick thought (just trying to be helpful), sometimes a slightly blotchy layer mask can be rescued by applying a little gaussian blur to the layer mask,

[Dilznik]

So I did what I should've done in the first place and scanned a file at 1600, 3200, and 6400. 1600 pixelated pretty early. 6400 was 800 mb. 3200 seemed like a good median.

More telling, I discovered Perfect Photo Suite made layered copies of the originals that were much larger than the originals which I think is what's causing my issues. For example my 180mb 3200 scan turned into 700ish mb. The 6400 scan was 3.7gb. And all I did was open them in Perfect Resize.

Off to the Apple Store with images on a stick to see what can handle them.

[bob carnie]

I am using Cs3 at work and I have Cs6 at home , most of my work is at home, I will check the difference


Just curious what version of PS you are using and what your max brush size is. I'm using CS6 and have a max brush size of 5,000 pixels. That means I could have a 20,000 x 20,000 pixel image and have the brush cover 1/4 of the image.

[bob carnie]

good point,

Just another quick thought (just trying to be helpful), sometimes a slightly blotchy layer mask can be rescued by applying a little gaussian blur to the layer mask,

[bob carnie]

I print in the darkroom and the dim room,, A very large tool at low opacity on a layer is very powerful and reacts exactly like working under an enlarger.

Explain to me why and area should not be burnt at all I find this statement kind of funny??



QUOTE=Lenny Eiger;1127058]It sounds to me like these kinds of dodge and burn should be done on a layer, for one (not with he dodge and burn tool) and 2, if you are burning that large, it should probably not be burnt at all. It should be done with a curve adjustment layer and a mask. Gradation masks work nicely for this as well.


Lenny[/QUOTE]

[Greg Miller]

A very large tool at low opacity on a layer is very powerful and reacts exactly like working under an enlarger.

Ditto - I like this technique too.

[Deval]

Scanning at 1200 isn't a bad idea as far as digital cataloging goes. Good quality/size comprimise. If you wanted enlarge or print large, then re-scan at max optical res(or send for drum scan or digital camera scan and stitch), use some enlargement software and get the print the size you want. If you do all your image alterations in lightroom, it doesn't touch the original file and you can copy whatever image alteration you do to the repeat scan at higher resolution. The key is don't bother with changing the default curves in scanning, and leave it all for post.

[Lenny Eiger]

i print in the darkroom and the dim room,, a very large tool at low opacity on a layer is very powerful and reacts exactly like working under an enlarger.

Explain to me why and area should not be burnt at all i find this statement kind of funny??

Quote=lenny eiger;1127058]it sounds to me like these kinds of dodge and burn should be done on a layer, for one (not with he dodge and burn tool) and 2, if you are burning that large, it should probably not be burnt at all. It should be done with a curve adjustment layer and a mask. Gradation masks work nicely for this as well.
Lenny[/quote]

You find it funny because you consider burning and dodging essential in making a master print. I consider burning and dodging to be necessary when I didn't get my negative exactly right. We approach printing from a very different perspective. Both are fine, as far as I am concerned. It's the results that matter.

I have no real issue with large burns, as long as you are burning using a brush on a layer set to overlay (and not the burn and dodge tools). However, it you are burning in the entire top of the sky, for example, there are many tools, such as the gradation tool which can make this smoother than using a brush - of any size. The tools are there in Photoshop, why not use them... if it makes it easier. I don't hesitate to throw on a burn and dodge layer when I need to for smaller areas.

Of course, everyone can do what they want.

Lenny

[bob carnie]

I find photographs from considered perfect negatives with no creative manipulations , very boring. In fact how do you get a perfect negative? you must have found the magic bullet we all chase.

You must throw out a lot of negatives to make the perfect print, I find this approach very limiting.

The best prints I have seen from master printmakers all exhibit deliberate approaches under the enlarger post neg development, I can state I never have made a print in my continuous career of printing under an enlarger that has not have a dodge and burn. Its taken me over 100,000 negatives and I still have not found what you seem to have achieved.
My hat is off to you.





You find it funny because you consider burning and dodging essential in making a master print. I consider burning and dodging to be necessary when I didn't get my negative exactly right. We approach printing from a very different perspective. Both are fine, as far as I am concerned. It's the results that matter.

I have no real issue with large burns, as long as you are burning using a brush on a layer set to overlay (and not the burn and dodge tools). However, it you are burning in the entire top of the sky, for example, there are many tools, such as the gradation tool which can make this smoother than using a brush - of any size. The tools are there in Photoshop, why not use them... if it makes it easier. I don't hesitate to throw on a burn and dodge layer when I need to for smaller areas.

Of course, everyone can do what they want.

Lenny[/QUOTE]

[Lenny Eiger]

I find photographs from considered perfect negatives with no creative manipulations , very boring. In fact how do you get a perfect negative? you must have found the magic bullet we all chase.

You must throw out a lot of negatives to make the perfect print, I find this approach very limiting.

The best prints I have seen from master printmakers all exhibit deliberate approaches under the enlarger post neg development, I can state I never have made a print in my continuous career of printing under an enlarger that has not have a dodge and burn. Its taken me over 100,000 negatives and I still have not found what you seem to have achieved.
My hat is off to you.
Lenny

If we want to have this conversation that's fine. I just want to make sure we can do this with mutual respect for each one's approaches. I get you've made 10,000 prints. So have I. We've both printed for top photographers, we've both been called master printers by people we respect. I have no reason to cast aspersions at your abilities and I'm sure your approach is right for the photographers who have appreciated your work.

However, we have different heroes in the printing arena. The most exquisite prints I have seen were the platinum prints made by Frederick Evans, in the 1880's. Another, from that same period were by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. They had very little ability, if any, to do burning and dodging, certainly not in the way that you do it. I printed for Avedon at a fairly high contrast range, and did plenty of burning and dodging. However, his printing style is not my favorite. I don't like Ansel Adams' printing, either. I isn't that they weren't expert, they clearly were, but they were after a different style - one I don't particularly like. I don't like burning in the sky, or the foreground, for that matter. I like more of a full range of midtones and I am much more interested in the work of historical photographers than later ones, and alternate process prints. There are a few notable exceptions, of course, Paul Caponigro, for example, and of course, my mentor in my college days, Phil Perkis.

I have been able to match my negs to the exact print I am looking for. It takes a lot of work, and constant tuning, but yes, I did succeed. I can do 19 out of 20 on a good day. I am sure a lot of others here have done the same.

Lenny

[Greg Miller]

However, it you are burning in the entire top of the sky, for example, there are many tools, such as the gradation tool which can make this smoother than using a brush - of any size. The tools are there in Photoshop, why not use them... if it makes it easier. I don't hesitate to throw on a burn and dodge layer when I need to for smaller areas.

If you re-read Bob's original comment, he talked only about edge burning. It's a bit of a leap to take that to burning the entire sky. The gradation tool is pretty basic, so I would expect that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of PS and a lay based approach already knows the tool's capabilities and uses the tool when appropriate. But even then, unless the horizon is a perfect straight line, or the gradation can end completely in the sky, brushwork on the layer mask is still almost always required to get to an optimal image.

[bob carnie]

Lenny , that was over 100,000 negs to be clear

[Darin Boville]

The gradation tool is pretty basic, so I would expect that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of PS and a lay based approach already knows the tool's capabilities and uses the tool when appropriate.

You would be horrified by my Photoshop technique, or lack thereof!

--Darin

[sanking]

You would be horrified by my Photoshop technique, or lack thereof!

--Darin


You don't use the dodge and burn tool, do you?

Sandy

[Darin Boville]

You don't use the dodge and burn tool, do you?

Sandy

No. Layers/masks and brushes (usually at 3% opacity). But not the gradient tool. Too fancy for me!

--Darin

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny , that was over 100,000 negs to be clear

Sure. Ok. I have 52 years doing this. I didn't stop to count the negs....

[bob carnie]

You must have been pulling out your hair then when Richard Avedon made you make complicated dodges and burns, I have seen some of his printing notes and they were very detailed.

Sure. Ok. I have 52 years doing this. I didn't stop to count the negs....

[Lenny Eiger]

You must have been pulling out your hair then when Richard Avedon made you make complicated dodges and burns, I have seen some of his printing notes and they were very detailed.

No. When I print for others, I am happy to print in their style. (As you know, its quite a different skill.) Avedon and I got along very well. The last print I did for him had about a dozen different instructions. His negs were fairly dense, there was a lot of contrast built in. Also, quite consistent. He had a cold light head on an old 8x10 enlarger, with the cranks to raise the head. The darkroom was pretty small.

I spent many years of my life in the darkroom. I printed 20x24 color prints in trays when I was a kid, for my father. I processed 120 E6 with tanks and rolls when I was 9. I managed darkrooms for colleges before I taught there (Parsons and Cooper), and I repaired and tuned all their enlargers. I taught darkroom techniques, as well as alt process and view camera.

I did get frustrated when printed for a specialty b&w lab in San Francisco for a while. The photographers wanted the most exquisite prints, but about 85% of them had truly awful negs. I had to do every kind of manipulation, pull out the hot developer and everything...

Lenny

[federico9001]

quality of scan matters. otherwise "resolution" is often an empty word only.