Choosing an optimal size ( file size, MB's,tiff or jpg) for iphoto

I apologize to Old toad and others who have responded. OT seems to be the only one who answers so much. He deserves a standing ovation which i am giving him now.
But:
Lets start at the beginning. I am a semi-pro (i do not make my living on my photography) who never used Iphoto but must now because i wish to create a 100 page book.
I have files mostly tiffs that range from 17.2 to 60 MBs in size ( 3008-5000 /2000-3000 dpi ). I see that Iphoto ad nauseum creates a thumbnail, and a copy of the original photo for each photo. This is not HD friendly.
How big in pixel size/file size in MB's should the files be so that i do not use so much HD space? Should i just go ahead and drag the files that i have and allow for 5-10 GB of photos to accumulate on my HD? I realize i do not need
my files so big and that is why i ask here in the forums.
I realize most of my files are non compressed tiffs,i.e. big in file size.
What say you? Please be specific. Mention a specific file
size in MB's please
thanks

Glen:
I've created several books. They were with cameras that produced 1600 x 1200 pixel image files which will give a maximum 300 dpi size of 5.3 x 4 inches. All of my books have been the Storybook theme so the one photo per page is not a full page and I've never run into the warning for low resolution. Possiblly a full 8.5 x 11 photo page would have given me a warning. For the intended use of the books I found them to be very good. My Canon camera's color profile is very close to the Apple recommended sRGB so I've calibrated my monitor with the sRGB profile. Any edits I do with Photoshop CS3 embed the sRGB profile in the resulting file.
My current camera gives me 2272 x 2704 images. Haven't ordered a book since I've started using it but am in the process of creating one right now.
It's not the MB size of the file that's important but the number of pixels in the image. For a full page photos, an image size of 3300 x 2250 would meet the optimal 300 dpi of the printing by Apple's suppliers. However, I have no doubt that my current camera's files would produce a good print at that size. That is if I got a good sharp image to start with.
So a 3300 x 2250 pixel jpg would provide just as good a print as the same sized tiff. Just keep as many pixels in the image as you can. For those good photographers that can do their cropping when they take the image that will maximize the files pixels for printing. I don't have the eye for that. But then my photos are of rapidly changing family situations and I don't have time top compose the picture.
I asked Apple about the printing and quality of materials used in the books and here's their replay:
I contacted Apple and asked for information that I could pass on. Here's the reply I received from Apple:
"Thank you for contacting the Apple Print Products Customer Service.
I understand that you would like to know the printing process that is used and the color mode the files should be in, so you can better advise users in the iPhoto forum.
iPhoto version 4 or later, allows you to import and print files through the Apple Print Product service as RGB, grayscale, or CMYK color space. JPEG files with RGB color space are recommended for best results.
While iPhoto 2 can import files of various formats, including RGB color, grayscale, and CMYK, this version requires JPEG files with RGB color space when printing photos and books.
For more information regarding iPhoto 2, please visit the following article:
iPhoto: Color, Black and White Prints Appear Garbled or Distorted
For more information regarding iPhoto 5, please visit the following article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=165501
Here are some of the technical specifications for the books, cards, and calendars. I hope this gives you an idea about their quality and form.
BOOKS
All iPhoto books are printed using acid-free paper for long-lasting image quality. The photos are printed at a high resolution (300DPI if you use iPhoto 6). There is no external modification--such as sharpening or contrast adjustment--of the photos; what you see in the application is what is printed in the book.
Hardcovers Books
The cover is hard-bound and covered in linen. You select the linen color during the book-ordering process. The hardcover books have a solid, stiff binding that is glued and crimped. The internal pages, measuring 8.5 x 11 inches, are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock.
Softcover Books
The softcover books come in three sizes:
- Large 8.5 x 11 inches
- Medium 6 x 8 inches
- Small 2.6 x 3.5 inches
All of the softcover books have internal pages that are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock. The large softcover book has a white cover (Kromekoteplus Folding Cover, 16 point) with a cutout on the front that reveals the cover-page photo in the book. The covers for the medium and small softcover books have the cover image and title printed directly on the cover. All of the softcover books have a glued binding and feature a thick cover of McCoy 100# Cover Gloss paper stock.
CARDS
All cards are printed on McCoy 120# Silk Cover paper stock. The postcards measure 4 x 6 inches, and the greeting cards measure 5 x 7inches.
CALENDARS
All calendars measure 8 x 10 inches and are printed on McCoy 100# Silk Cover paper stock.
To ensure the best print quality, we have chosen to use Kodak NexPress technology. The press uses a dry toner, which is fused to the surface of the paper. Please see NexPress' site for more information:
KODAK NEXPRESS 2500 Digital Production Color Press
I hope you find this information helpful in answering questions on the iPhoto forum."
As Apple stated, I hope this information is helpful.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.
MBP 2.16Ghz; G5 Dual Core 2GHz, 2G RAM ea, 250G HD; G4 Dual 1Ghz, 1.5G RAM; Mac OS X (10.4.10) 22" LCD, 710G FW HDs, Canon: SD700IS/i850/LIDE 50, Epson R200, 30G iPod, 2G Nano

Similar Messages

Photoshop CS6 & Doc Size & File Size???

Working on a collage and have a relatively scall document, 6"x10" at 300dpi and used the Place command to add images and arrange and have 14 layers. The images were resized to fit using the Transform scale too. Was watching the document size at the lower left of the document window and it showed that the Doc was 34.3 M/178 M. Looked good so I went to save the beast as a PSD. At 75% of the save it threw an error message saying the document was greater than 2GB in size. Hmm, why did the doc size show otherwise. So ended up saving as a PSB whic worked. But the responsiveness of my system went to hell until I shut down Photoshop. I mean it was almost unresponsive. Starting Photoshop again, opening the PSB and making a few changes and my system was flying again. So maybe processing the PSD then throwing the error managed to grab all the resources.
So maybe there are two issues I have seen, one is Photoshop reporting the wrong doc size and the other bad error processing?
Photoshop CS6 with the latest patch applied, Windows 7 x64 with 16GB RAM, i7 processor.
Here are a couple of screen shots that show the doc size problem
Mike

Noel Carboni wrote:
I appreciate your desire to make Photoshop work the way you want it to, but why not consider placing the images as flattened raster layers? Work at a higher resolution if you're concerned about losing quality in moving them around and rotating them, but you should really ask yourself: Why do I want to fight with this ridiculous "smart object" embedding scheme and fight with such a huge file size instead of doing it the prudent way and ending up with a file that's much more efficient?
Noel
I can not answer for Mike but I can tell you why I do collages some what like Mike placing user image file in as they are. Populated Collages done that way are still Photoshop Layer Documents and can be tweaked by the user. If you flatten and change image files on the user you destroy work that they have done creating layered images so they can be tweaked using these layers. The way I look at it is populated collages are works in progress untill they ready for final output. Flattening and Pasting in resized image are destructive processes and may even change composition by croping images. I feel it best not to distroy users work if at all posible. Let the user do that if they wish to. Using Smart Object let user use any image file they want, Any size, resolution and Image format that Photoshop support. If the user chooses to use RAW files, PSD files or any other it their choice and they may have a good reason to use PSD files for a given collage. When the collage is ready for final output the user is free to flatten and save a compressed jpeg if the wish to save disk space and keep a copy of the collage. They do not have to save a layered collage if they don't wish too. They only need to that if the batch process collage for later tweaking or the want to continue to work on the collage at some future date. You don't fight you use smart object. They are only huge if you save layered files their rendered layers are not huge. If the filel is falttened the total rendered flat layer is just canvas size.

Modified photos have 0 kb size File size !!!

I know I am a dinosaur working with iPhoto 09 and OS X 10.5.8 but I have never ever recognized that problem before.
When I modify my photos (Resize, brighten, whatever...) all of the modified photos are in the modified photos folder but (only) some with 0 kb. The thumbnails look ok, but when I click on them they are just black. Originals are ok. I can easily modify them in an external editor, that works. Any idea?

I have this problem all the time- but it seems to be confined to photos from a specific camera. Rotating the image seems to be the single biggest culprit in zeroing out the image, but it can happen with any edit done within iPhoto. My iPhoto version is 8.1.2.
If you try to edit the corrupted image in PhotoShop, an error message appears, typically: "Could not complete your request because a JPEG marker segment length is too short (the file may be truncated or incomplete)."
My fix for this is to revert the offending image to original, and re-edit it using an external editor. This works 100% of the time, but is an annoying, time consuming chore to be sure.

Impact of data file size on DB performance

Hi,
I have a general query regarding size of data files.
Considering DB performance, which of the below 2 options are better?
1. Bigger data file size but less number of files (ex. 2 files with size 8G each)
2. Smaller data file size but more number of files (ex. 8 files with size 2G each)
I am working on a DB where I have noticed where very high I/O.
I understand there might be many reasons for this.
However, I am checking for possibility to improve DB performance though optimizing data file sizes. (Including TEMP/UNDO table spaces)
Kindly share your experiences with determining optimal file size.
Please let me know in case you need any DB statistics.
Few details are as follows:
OS: Solaris 10
Oracle: 10gR2
DB Size: 80G (Approx)
Data Files: UserData - 6 (15G each), UNDO - 2 (8G each), TEMP - 2 (4G each)
Thanks,
Ullhas

Ullhas wrote:
I have a general query regarding size of data files.
Considering DB performance, which of the below 2 options are better?Size or number really does not matter assuming other variables constant. More files results in more open file handles, but in your size db, it matters not.
I am working on a DB where I have noticed where very high I/O.
I understand there might be many reasons for this.
However, I am checking for possibility to improve DB performance though optimizing data file sizes. (Including TEMP/UNDO table spaces)Remember this when tuning I/O: The fastest I/O is the one that never takes place! High I/O may very well be a symptom of unnecessary FTS or poor execution plans. Validate this first before tuning I/O and you will be much better off.
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org

No file size appears when I save a .pages file

When I save a .pages file there is no file size listed in the directory. In the file directory it says only -- where all the other files have a size in KB or MB listed in that column.
What's going on here?
The file can be opened without a problem. And when I right click on the listing and choose Get Info, the file size is there in that pop up window -but not in the listing.
I cannot email this file either -because, I guess, it reads the listing as an empty file.
I can convert it to a .doc file and email that, but as a .pages file I get nothing.
What's going on here?
GG

Guy,
Walt

Save for Web with Optimize File Size for Batch Process

I have a client who needs to be able to run a batch process on jpg images ranging in size from 600KB to 2.5MB optimizing their file size as close to 200KB as possible. The feature is included in Photoshop's save for web optimize dialog but it doesn't work for batch processes. If you record an action with the optimize to file size option set it processes all the images in the batch based on the quality settings required to resize the image you used during recording, meaning if the image you recorded was 1.5MB the quality setting might be 70 percent to hit the 200KB mark but that wouldn't be the correct quality setting for a 600KB file nor a 2.5MB file those would either be too small or too large.
I've done quite a bit of searching both online and in the photoshop scripting forums but I haven't been able to find anything that would point me in the right direction.
My client's paying for this work so if there's someone who knows how to script this who'd rather be paid than just do some pointing we can arrange for that quite easily.
Thanks in advance for your assistance and suggestions.
In case it's of importance we're using Photoshop CS4.

If you don't mind spending a few bucks on a shareware prog, Jpegsizer has the option to save to a filesize.
You can find it here.
http://www.tangotools.com/jpegsizer/register.htm
There is a free trial version, but you can't save files.

File Size Reduction When Editing in Photoshop

When using Smart Objects my DNG file sizes increase from 9mb to over 100mb after a few adjustments.
I found that I can reduce the file size greatly, for example back to 9mb, by reducing the Image Size to, for example 300 x 400 pixels, without flattening.
Then I can save the file. The next time I want to work on it, I can open it, change the image size back to the original, for example, 2592 x 3872, and have all of my adjustments and filters available to make further changes.
Although, I cannot see any difference in quality, I am new to this, and I am concerned that I am not skilled enough to see the difference.
It would be very beneficial to store 9mb files instead of 100mb files and still have the same quality available, when needed.
Please tell me if I am missing something here.

Jeff,
With your guidance, I did an experiment. I made a Curves Layer and painted on the mask to reveal the adjustment. I then changed the file sizes as shown in the table, saved the file, re-opened it, and then re-sized it. (Image Size in pixels; File Size in megabytes). The comments under image refer to the painted area of the layer mask. As you indicated, I did not observe any degradation outside the painted area of the layer mask.
Image Size File Size Layer Mask Image
2592x3872 112.5 mb
800x1195 18.9 Intact Slight Saturation and sharpness
degradation
2x3 8.5 Blurred Major degradation
Thanks for directing me to the issue. This will allow me to make an informed choice when balancing quality with file size.

Max File Size readable

Hi !
Can java read more than 2GB size files? Has anyoneone encountered any limit for the maximum size?
-sanjay

hi,
the maximum file size for java applications is java.lang.Long.MAX_VALUE (2^63-1) which should be more than sufficient. the java IO uses the the IO routines of the underlying operating system, so if your OS is capable of reading such files, java will be too.
sincerely, Michael

What is the maximum File Size we can send

Hi Experts,
I have done simple scenario file to file without IR.
I have one doubt here, what is maximum file size (Text and XML)we can transfer from source to target ftps.
text file = file size?
xml file = file size?
Thanks for inputs.
Bhaskar

There is no limit to the message size (file size) that can be transfered.....the only thing required is that your server should have the necessary configuration (hardware) to handle a file of a particlar size.
this question is actually asked a couple of times and in there people have even mentioned the transfer of files in 1GB ... so it all depends on your Hardware.
Regards,
Abhishek.

Acrobat 7.0.9: Optimizing PDF increases file size?

Audit Space Usage in the Optimize dialog shows "Color Spaces" ballooning from 0.8 MB to 22 MB when a PDF is optimized (goes from 3% of the file size to 58%). File size increases from 23.8 MB to 35.6 MB.
What exactly is happening, and how can I fix it?
Thanks for any info.

Hey, Jon
Interesting...
Original file (300 dpi CMYK images) 23.8 MB
Images 19 MB
Color Spaces 0.8 MB
Optimize with flattening (72 dpi images, low quality) 68.7 MB
Images 49 MB
Color Spaces 18 MB
Optimize without flattening (72 dpi images, low quality) 68.2 MB
Images 48 MB
Color Spaces 18 MB
Not sure why color spaces are down to 18 MB from 22 MB, I used a preset that I THOUGHT was the same one I used yesterday. Regardless, it's bizarre that both images and color spaces are getting huge when optimized.
I used Create PDF from Multiple Files to bring in a bunch of pages, but I'm reasonably sure that all those files were already flattened before I brought them in.
I'll file that transparency tip for next time though, you never know when it might come up.
Thanks.

PDF gaining file size when "optimizing"

I have a PDF that I'm trying to reduce the size of, the original size is around 6 MB, when I have "optimized" the size actually increased anywhere from 9MB to 15MB. There were a few attempts that I do get it to a lower size, but along with that there are missing letters and font issues. I've attempted numerous processes, but can't seem to find one that works. Any suggestions on a fail-safe way to do this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
j o s e f

Getting rid of fonts is a bad idea if you are making it a web document. However, you could subset the fonts. You might also try FILE>Reduce File Size. There are a lot of options in optimize and you may need to play with those a bit. Bill

Save as Reduced Size PDF and Save as Optimized PDF do not reduce the file size. What gives?

Save as Reduced Size PDF and Save as Optimized PDF do not reduce the file size. What gives? I used Acrobat 9 to do this for a long time. I recently received new laptop loaded with with Acrobat 10 and it does not work the same. I typically scan 8-10 pages of receipts, combine the files in Acrobat, and then optimize to reduce the size so I can upload with my expense report. Typically, my files were reduced to 200-400 KB. I have a 2 MB file that will not reduce at all.

Bernd, thank you for your attempt to help but the option dialog windows do not contain the same options. There are numerous other posts on this forum about this issue and there is no answer. Clearly, there is an issue. I have submitted this issue to our internal help desk.

Maximum file size of 2 GB exceeded please choose a shorter bounce time

I have done a thorough search online (w/google) trying several combinations of words but I seem to be the only person on the planet with this error. I guess I will try to remake the project but I don't think it will fix the problem. I also will update my OS to 10.4.10, anyways here is the the error message.
"Maximum file size of 2 GB exceeded please choose a shorter bounce time"
I just bought and installed iLife 08 and the 8.1 update for Garageband. I have a 3 hr and 50 track on the time line and I have added chapter marks with 16k pics. The original combined track size (wav files) did exceed 2GB but I edited the files in itunes (to mono wav files) and swapped in the new files so that the max file size should only be 1.5GB. I still get the error message above when I try to export the podcast to disk using AAC w/Mono Podcast setting. Your help is appreciated.
Message was edited by: Thad

I am now the third person in the world to get this error message, except my GB project is a mere 1 hour and 45 minutes long. I've outputted longer projects before and never got this error before. It's a new one to me, and frustrating. How exactly am I supposed to choose a "shorter bounce time" if there is no explanation anywhere in Appleworld of what a bounce time is or how to set it shorter?
Again, I'm not doing anything different with this project than others that shared successfully, and the dialog box estimates my outputted file size to be approx. 100 MB.
Can anybody help me get through this error blockage? Please?

What file size is used for "optimized" upload/download?

When I upload my photo files from Aperture (and previously from iPhoto) I routinely use the upload setting named "dowloading of optimized" files. I know that this downsizes the files for faster upload/download, but still gives a file size acceptable for great onscreen presentation and for a resulting small print of someone downloads. Can anyone tell what downsizing Aperture/iPhoto does in this case? For example, 50% jpeg, email sized jpeg, etc. Since Apple will kill the MobileMe galleries in June I have to switch to another photo presentation host. For upload to such a host Aperture/iPhoto gives choices like 100% jpeg, 50% jpeg, etc. What I want to do is end up with something similar to what I now get with the "optimized" setting. Thank you.

You will note that I referenced both programs (iPhoto & Aperture) in my original message above, and I have posted in both forums. Since both programs offer the same (at least on the surface) option of "optimized" to MobileMe galleries, one might assume that both use the same or a similar system. Lengthly testing of my own is the "best" solution only if I can not find anyone who is knowledgeable about what these programs do in the upload. It has been my sincere joy over many many years that I often find people on these forums who possess knowledge much greater than I. As to the programs changing the algorithum at any time, I doubt that since this MobileMe function will disappear in June. Seems like a strange time to make changes.

FAST_START_MTTR_TARGET - Optimal File Size

I have set Fast_Start_MTTR_Target to 3600 (1 hour)...when I query v$instance_recovery view it says that 17929 MB is my suggested log file size. They are now sized at 300MB. This can't be correct, can it? I can't have a 17GB log file. This is Oracle JD Edwards though....but what else should I look at? I know 300MB is too small.

kirkladb wrote:
I have set Fast_Start_MTTR_Target to 3600 (1 hour)...when I query v$instance_recovery view it says that 17929 MB is my suggested log file size. They are now sized at 300MB. This can't be correct, can it? I can't have a 17GB log file. This is Oracle JD Edwards though....but what else should I look at? I know 300MB is too small. I Beleieve you have to FSMT to too high value i.e 1hr. I dont think you will wait your database to startup after instance crash for 1hr?????? This is i believe is not a gud settings. I would rather go with default value initially
Now you have set FSMT to 1hr and oracle would think that it has to do incremental checkpoint after 1hr (to flush dirty block from buffer cache to disk) . So due to this configuration you are seeing too high value in v$instance_recovery i.e 17929.
Please be notes that value of Optimal_logfile_size is very dynamic in nature and changes its value depending upon the load on system. So you cannot basically rely on this value if your system experience dynamic load.
Looking upon Load in database and amount of redolog file switches per sec/min, If they happen to be too frequent for example 2-3logfile switches per 20 mins, then its considered to be overswitching. Oracle recommends for optimal performance every logfile switch should not happen before 15-20 mins.
So good approach is to first see your alert.log and find out that how many log switches are happening then take a decision to increase the logfile size.
Please check with your organization what they suggest how much time they need to wait while instance do its recovery and then change value from default to higher.
Edited by: 909592 on Mar 29, 2012 11:45 AM

Choosing an optimal size ( file size, MB's,tiff or jpg) for iphoto

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for