File size increases 4x - 6x when editing in PS, compared to LR

[Architeuthis 192]

I am taking photos with Sony A7R5 and edit them in LR plus Photoshop...

I save the photos originally as lossless raw (60-70 MB/image) plus jpg standard (1-2 MB/image) on the memory card and import these to LR. In LR the file sizes are not increased, since they remain in their original form. The problem comes, when I edit in PS, directly out of LR. When I close the edited file, in order to come back to LR, I store the new file in TIFF format...

When using PS directly out of LR, one has to adjust the file type and compression in LR settings. I set the option here to ZIP (16 bit/component, 240 dpi). The file sizes for the circular fisheye image below are: RAW: 63,9 MB; TIFF (ZIP): 202,4 MB and TIFF (uncompressed): 361,3 MB...

 

Is there a way to store the PS edited files in a way that does not consume this excessive amount of storage space (but without any loss in IQ)?

 

Thanks, Wolfgang

Edited May 4 by Architeuthis

[TimG 62]

I, not a PS expert and I’m sure others will chip in, but isn’t it because the file still has layers? If I remember rightly you can de-layer the file and then save it which reduces the file size?

[Architeuthis 192]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

I, not a PS expert and I’m sure others will chip in, but isn’t it because the file still has layers? If I remember rightly you can de-layer the file and then save it which reduces the file size?

Hi Tim,

No, this is not in layers. It is the pure TIFF file (unfortunately PS does not store the modification/editing instructions in a separate file and keeps the raw file intact, as LR does). I also can store in PS format, but the size is not smaller then...

Maybe the solution is to avoid PS as much as possible and make all the editing in LR (with every update LR gets more and more PS like functions and it is probably nostalgy, why I am still using PS for some editing)...

 

Wolfgang

[Interceptor121 843]

There are several possible permutations which end up with large files in photoshop

Generally if you used layers you want to keep them as they contain the edits

You can compress an image or compress the layers or both

More compression less space and more processing time to save

Photoshop does not have metadata unlike lightroom

However if you saved a file as DNG and did some edits it keeps it as DNG if that is of any comfort

I only use photoshop for sharpening and some specific taks like backscatter removal thankfully most images don't need extensive help

The issue is that a raw file has a single color per pixel while tiff is RGB 32 bits so the space multiplies brutally 6.85x before you compress

Lightroom maintains edits as metadata and as you noted 

Edited May 4 by Interceptor121

[Architeuthis 192]

3 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

There are several possible permutations which end up with large files in photoshop

Generally if you used layers you want to keep them as they contain the edits

You can compress an image or compress the layers or both

More compression less space and more processing time to save

Photoshop does not have metadata unlike lightroom

However if you saved a file as DNG and did some edits it keeps it as DNG if that is of any comfort

I only use photoshop for sharpening and some specific taks like backscatter removal thankfully most images don't need extensive help

 

I also use PS for backscatter removal and sharpening. How do you store these files and how large are they?

[Interceptor121 843]

Just now, Architeuthis said:

I also use PS for backscatter removal and sharpening. How do you store these files and how large are they?

Since the A1 I do not think I have used photoshop once as I have not done any stacking or backscatter removal and the images are even too sharp. I can save a file later to see

[ChrisRoss 150]

PS and Lightroom are fundamentally different.  Lightroom keeps the Raw file and a stores all of your edits to it, in the the catalogue - the file won't get bigger. 

Raw files are very compact, but turn them into tiffs and they get bigger, it's because the data is stored differently.

Apparently compression doesn't work well on 16 bit files they can even get bigger if you use compression. I just tried a random 16 bit file saved as a tif, then with LZW and Zip compression.  They were 115, 106 and 104 MB respectively.  if I convert to 8 bit the file sizes become 57.6/30.7/27.6 MB repectively.  You can see that compression nearly halves the size of the 8 bit file but barely makes a dent in the 16 bit file.  Another 16 bit 136 MB tif file started off as a 17MB 20MP Raw file when saved unchanged as a tiff.  That's just how much space it takes to store all the data in that form.

Now the next question to ask is do you need 16 bit tiffs stored?  IMO, you don't 16 bits main advantage is for headroom when editing it keeps gradients smoother so you don't posterize things like the sky or water when you stretch data.  Once you've edited it and providing you don't edit it any more 99.99% of the time you won't notice the difference between an 8 bit and a 16 bit file.  I store all my edited files as 8bit LZW compressed tifs.  If you store a layered tiff you can always change the file back to 16 bit and paste a new 16 bit converted RAW image in, provided you haven't done any cloning on it.

Lightroom is getting better but it can't do what PS can do with layers and it doesn't have a levels option, I've never used Lightroom for those reasons.  Also unless things have changed as I understand it cloning things like backscatter out of your image is way easier in PS. 

I would suggest use PS when you need it and store the results as 8 bit.  OR: storage is pretty cheap these days bite the bullet and get bigger hard drives. 

 

 

 

[RVbldr 10]

Just tangential to some of the above comments, and I'm not sure if anyone else received a survey from Adobe for LR users. They were certainly doing some user surveys to explore requirements for future features and many of the questions were around use of both LR and PS, how a user was swapping back and forth, what features might be useful, and even some topics around mobile device use. All-in-all, it really felt like there's a convergence that's going to continue. 

[Interceptor121 843]

Just did what I used to do before just edit from lightroom and save two layers one smartobject with filter

original 55 MB Tiff 1.46 GB....

[TmxDiver 47]

As a tangent, some of the newer "tools" in LR are really efficient at removing backscatter. Things such Select Subject, Select Sky, etc.

IMHO, the are certainly worth a try and might alleviate the need for PS.

- brett

[Architeuthis 192]

I thank you all for the interesting comments...

It seems the problem is PS and the inability of an option to store raw file + modifications instead of the impracticable TIFF format. I think I will try to avoid PS in the future, since I seldom perform operations there, that could not be performed as well in LR. I have to tweak my LR routines to give me the same results as with LR&PS...

Not a big problem, but surely a certificate of poverty for a software that is based on a permanent payment abo mode...

(I am still  too comfortable and uninterested to learn to work with another software in order to change to another software, but this recognition brings me a step further towards changeing)

 

Wolfgang

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

6 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I thank you all for the interesting comments...

It seems the problem is PS and the inability of an option to store raw file + modifications instead of the impracticable TIFF format. I think I will try to avoid PS in the future, since I seldom perform operations there, that could not be performed as well in LR. I have to tweak my LR routines to give me the same results as with LR&PS...

Not a big problem, but surely a certificate of poverty for a software that is based on a permanent payment abo mode...

(I am still  too comfortable and uninterested to learn to work with another software in order to change to another software, but this recognition brings me a step further towards changeing)

 

Wolfgang

 

I really don't think the problem is PS,  Lightroom doesn't actually modify your Raw file it stores the instructions for modifying your raw file which I suspect limits what can be done as the instructions it is storing will get progressively more complicated.  Of the alternatives anything else you can use will use .tif files as well, apart from capture One perhaps.  If you don't use PS a great deal surely storing a few large tif files to preserve your edits should not be a big penalty for when you actually need to use it?

[Architeuthis 192]

7 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

 If you don't use PS a great deal surely storing a few large tif files to preserve your edits should not be a big penalty for when you actually need to use it?

I think this is the way to go: use PS only in selected cases, where it is really required. Using it by default, as I was doing up to now, leads to waste of storage space, what is counterproductive (currently I have 2 TB SSD on my computer plus 2x20TB NAS server for archive, but no need to fill this up with nonsense stuff))...

 

Wolfgang

[ChrisRoss 150]

29 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I think this is the way to go: use PS only in selected cases, where it is really required. Using it by default, as I was doing up to now, leads to waste of storage space, what is counterproductive (currently I have 2 TB SSD on my computer plus 2x20TB NAS server for archive, but no need to fill this up with nonsense stuff))...

 

Wolfgang

Agree, I have smaller files of course, but I generally save 8 bit tiffs of the files I actually process, I have a lot of raw files I'm keeping but only a small percentage of them end up being fully processed - the raw files after all are the data and the tiff your interpretation of that data.  I do try to be rigourous in junking Raw files that are blurred or other issues which does help.  I changed my HDD to a 4TB recently, which keeps my entire archive.  You might benefit from a 4TB SSD,  for your computer with the larger Sony files ?  The Samsung ones are now some-what reasonably priced.

[TimG 62]

48 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I think this is the way to go: use PS only in selected cases, where it is really required.

This is what I do. I find I use PS less and less now.

As you said earlier, the recent updates in LR are significant and remove the need for a lot of the functions I used to use with PS. I maybe only use it now to remove larger elements which might intrude on an image. Even that though seems more doable in LR following the updates..

[Interceptor121 843]

If you open a raw file with bridge and then save in psd you have smaller files and you can control more the process