TIFF Files too big

ndwgolf

ndwgolf

Messages
4,375
Name
Neil Williams
Edit My Images
No
Guys
I recently bought a new Nikon Z9 (Love this camera) but after I have finished processing my images in Photoshop many of the images are massive (2.69GB+) I found this out when I started using Bridge and it just won't load all those +1GB thumbnails. I know it's the multiple layer thing but what I would like to do now and in future is to keep these TIFF files below 1GB.
I have 1000s of these images.
So my question is how can I batch process these already high GB images to get them below 1GB and when saving newly processed images in the future how do I save them as a TIFF but below 1GB
Thanks in advance
 
Do you need to save a TIFF at all when you have the raw, unless it is one you spent a lot of time editing for some reason.
I never save in that format, I don't know if I should.
 
This doesn't help with your back catalogue but in future your could down-scale the image before going into PS, most uses just don't need all those pixels.
 
ndwgolf said:
Guys
I recently bought a new Nikon Z9 (Love this camera) but after I have finished processing my images in Photoshop many of the images are massive (2.69GB+) I found this out when I started using Bridge and it just won't load all those +1GB thumbnails. I know it's the multiple layer thing but what I would like to do now and in future is to keep these TIFF files below 1GB.
I have 1000s of these images.
So my question is how can I batch process these already high GB images to get them below 1GB and when saving newly processed images in the future how do I save them as a TIFF but below 1GB
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

Before you save the image in Photoshop you should flatten it.
 
4wd said:
Do you need to save a TIFF at all when you have the raw, unless it is one you spent a lot of time editing for some reason.
I never save in that format, I don't know if I should.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the OP is performing extensive editing in Photoshop, using a lot of layers in the process. The TIFF is likely to be significantly removed from the original RAW.

My suggestion would be to flatten the layers once editing is complete. Especially if it's files now in an archive, then you're unlikely ever to need the layers back to change the edits.
 
Last edited:
In Bridge I’ve managed to learn how to batch resize all my TIFF files as PSD files by going to TOOLS > PHOTOSHOP > IMAGE PROCESS and resize to 5000 px along the long size. My images are now below 500MB compared to over 2GB
 
swanseamale47 said:
I find PSD format much better size wise when I have lots of layers. I used to use Tiff but never found any advantage really.
Click to expand...
This. PSD is better if you stick with Adobe. Tiff is actually not far behind if you take care to tick zip compression option. It is lossless and there are like zero reasons not to use it unless your pc is like 486 with 16mb, yes mb of ram
 
LongLensPhotography said:
This. PSD is better if you stick with Adobe. Tiff is actually not far behind if you take care to tick zip compression option. It is lossless and there are like zero reasons not to use it unless your pc is like 486 with 16mb, yes mb of ram
Click to expand...

Using zipped tiffs makes them really, really slow to save or load if you have multiple layers. It's even worse if you use smart objects.
 
juggler said:
Using zipped tiffs makes them really, really slow to save or load if you have multiple layers. It's even worse if you use smart objects.
Click to expand...
I find it is no difference with PSD, which is just an extension to tiff format. Hence the 486 comment... fast CPU and nvme helps.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I find it is no difference with PSD, which is just an extension to tiff format. Hence the 486 comment... fast CPU and nvme helps.
Click to expand...
Ditto. PSDs are really slow too. Uncompressed tiffs are an order of magnitude faster than either.

Something about the compression seems to have real trouble with channel data (or masks)

fwiw my PC is fairly competent.
 
juggler said:
Ditto. PSDs are really slow too. Uncompressed tiffs are an order of magnitude faster than either.

Something about the compression seems to have real trouble with channel data (or masks)

fwiw my PC is fairly competent.
Click to expand...
You decide if it is worth clogging up the drive 5 times as fast for 10s saved while saving the edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top