File Size Discrepancy Between Photoshop & the Finder

I'm trying to be as brief as I can, so here goes. The specific application (PS) is irrelevant, I think. This is about why an app shows one file size & the Finder shows a different file size. In this case, it's a huge difference, due to the file being an image.
I imported into PS CS, from a CD, an original image, which the Finder shows as 269.4 MB. The file format is TIFF, and the bit-depth is 16, not 8. The Finder shows it as a "TIFF Document." Now. I did a Save As and edited that as a master image file. So, I have two files: the original and the master.
I substantially cropped (deleted) pixels in the master file. So, at the same 16-bit depth, the master file should be smaller in size than the original. Right? However, the Finder shows the file to be 433.6 MB in size! Photoshop shows the file to be a more realistic 185.8 MB in size. Why is the Finder showing such a huge file size? Why is the Finder storing 247.8 MB more than I need? The Finder shows this file as an "Adobe Photoshop TIFF file," so there has been a change in format. The file is flattened; no layers, etc., are involved.
One clue could be that the Finder is storing the larger file size to accommodate Photoshop. If one multiplies 185.8 MB by 3, the result is close to the 433.6 MB figure. The 3 stands for the three color channels (red, green, blue) of each pixel (data element) in the image.
The original image, however, is stored correctly by the Finder. Photoshop and the Finder agree on the 269.4 MB file size. If the above scenario were true, the Finder would be storing the original file at three times the size as shown in Photoshop. In other words, there would be consistency in what the Finder is doing.
I suppose I could just ignore the discrepancy, but I have hundreds of images to process, and I don't want to have to go into PS every time to get a true reading of file sizes. The Finder should be accurate in doing that.
I may be in the wrong forum re: Photoshop, but here I think I can find some expertise re: the Finder, since the Finder's storing procedures are in question, to my mind. It's definitely an app/OS interface problem, as I see it. Simply, I edit a file downward in data, save it, yet the Finder saves it at a larger size.

...do you think a lot of cloning & healing brush might have added to the file size, even though I cropped the image?
Yes, depending on your History settings. The more you work on an image, the more history it accumulates. The more different states and sanpshots you save in the History palette, the bigger the file gets as you work on it, because you're storing (within the file) complete information about the file's state before and after every individual change you make to it. What I don't recall is whether that all gets saved to the file in a Save As, or whether the history is flushed each time the file is Saved.
I should warn you that I am by NO stretch of the imagination a PS expert. I was still using PS 5.0.2 until last February, when I upgraded to CS2 (knowing it will be years before I have enough hardware horsepower to run CS3). I'm a rank beginner with CS2, and if someone else wants to jump in here and point out that I'm all wrong, it will be no surprise to me. And because I never used CS, I don't know whether what I'm describing in CS2 is even relevant here.

Similar Messages

  • Photoshop file size Discrepancy

    Hey Guys.
    I have a photoshop file which while editing states what I believe is the flat/layered file sizes down the bottom left of the screen of 116.7M/255.4M.
    But when I save the file Finder shows the file size as being 1.53GB.
    Is this normal? What am I missing? See below screen grab

    The size in Photoshop is pretty accurate.
    But it has nothing to do with file size.
    Please read the documentation again.
    Files are compressed, and different file formats will compress differently, and the amount of compression is very much related to the image content.
    That's why Photoshop never displays file sizes except for estimates in the JPEG and the Save For Web dialogs.
    The sizes displayed in Photoshop's status bar and info palette are the size of the document in memory, or the flattened size of the image (uncompressed).

  • Anybody know how to increase the plugin file size limit in Photoshop CS6 to greater than 250 mb?

    Can anyone tell me if it is possible to increase the plugin file size limit in Photoshop CS6 to greater than 250 mb and how to do it? Can plugins running in PSCC handle larger file sizes than CS6?

    Wow, thanks for getting back to me!!
    I am running the latest version of HDR Soft Photomatix Tone Mapping Plug-In - Version 2.2 in Photoshop CS6 on a fully loaded solid state MacBook Air. When I attempt to process files exceeding 250 mb with the plugin I get an error message and the plugin will not work. The plugin works fine with anything south of 250 mb. I have also optimized the performance settings in CS6 for large file sizes.
    The standalone version of HRD Soft’s Photomatix Pro easily processes files well in excess of 300 mb.
    I have contacted Photomatix support and they say that 250megs is simply the max file size that Photoshop will allow to run a plugin with.
    So is there any setting that I’m overlooking in Photoshop CS6 that will allow me to process these large files with the plugin? Or if there is indeed a file size limit for plugin processing in CS6 is the limit higher in CC?
    Thanks in advance for your help.

  • Slight file size discrepencies between identical photos?

    While looking at the metadata of photos I am working with, I have noticed that identical photos in every single aspect of pertinent metadata (lense, focal, other various exif data) happens to have a slight file size discrepency.  For instance, a dscf2001 has a file size of 752kbs and the duplicate dscf2001 has the file size of 732kbs.  These photos have not been altered in any manner. 
    This situation happens with a large portion of my duplicate photos.  One photo's file size is slightly bigger or smaller than the other photo that is the identical version in every single aspect minus the slight file size difference.  Is this a math situation?  If I open with another program will these photos appear as the same file size? 
    Thanks

    They have been copied between drives with different filesystems (iphoto and aperture and old macbook to new macbook).  Maybe this is the issue?
    How did you transit your images from iPhoto? Did you export them from iPhoto or import the iPhoto library? Have the images you are comparing been imported from iPhoto at the same time, from the same iPhoto versions?
    If you compare the original master image files of the images in question in the Finder, do the originals have the same size?

  • How can I keep tabs on the file size when importing from the Event Library into a Project? I want to ensure the movie will fit onto a 4.7Gb disc?

    How can I keep tabs on the file size when importing from the Event Library into a Project? I want to ensure the movie will fit onto a 4.7Gb disc?

    iDVD does not care about file sizes, as it compresses the file to the standard DVD format of mpeg2.
    It only cares about length i.e. max 2 hours including titles etc.
    iDVD encoding settings:
    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iDVD/7.0/en/11417.html
    Short version:
    Best Performance is for videos of up to 60 minutes
    Best Quality is for videos of up to 120 minutes
    Professional Quality is also for up to 120 minutes but even higher quality (and takes much longer)
    Professional Quality: The Professional Quality option uses advanced technology to encode your video, resulting in the best quality of video possible on your burned DVD. You can select this option regardless of your project’s duration (up to 2 hours of video for a single-layer disc and 4 hours for a double-layer disc). Because Professional Quality encoding is time-consuming (requiring about twice as much time to encode a project as the High Quality option, for example) choose it only if you are not concerned abo
    In both cases the maximum length includes titles, transitions and effects etc. Allow about 15 minutes for these.
    You can use the amount of video in your project as a rough determination of which method to choose. If your project has an hour or less of video (for a single-layer disc), choose Best Performance. If it has between 1 and 2 hours of video (for a single-layer disc), choose High Quality. If you want the best possible encoding quality for projects that are up to 2 hours (for a single-layer disc), choose Professional Quality. This option takes about twice as long as the High Quality option, so select it only if time is not an issue for you.
    Use the Capacity meter in the Project Info window (choose Project > Project Info) to determine how many minutes of video your project contains.
    NOTE: With the Best Performance setting, you can turn background encoding off by choosing Advanced > “Encode in Background.” The checkmark is removed to show it’s no longer selected. Turning off background encoding can help performance if your system seems sluggish.
    And whilst checking these settings in iDVD Preferences, make sure that the settings for NTSC/PAL and DV/DV Widescreen are also what you want.
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1502?viewlocale=en_US

  • Different file size between Photoshop, and finder/explorer?

    I posted this discussion last week  http://forums.adobe.com/message/5820325#5820325   and have now determined that some part (still don't understand how/why)  of my scanning/saving workflow- is creating a new layer "Layer 0" to replace the locked Background layer. This is causing the image to double, or triple in size. However, upon opening the image in Photoshop, the size of the image doesn't match the size viewed in finder, or Bridge....Does anyone know why? 
    23mb in Photoshop.
    44.81mb in Bridge.
    44.81mb in Finder
    EDIT: There is only one later in this image. No image edits, except for cropping. You can see in the last image, how using an identical workflow, some images are saving correctly (20ish mb) and some are double.

    Assuming you are deleting the spurious Layer 0, have you also then flattened the image before saving to see if that makes a difference?
    Cheers,
    Neale
    Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
    If this post or another user's post resolves the original issue, please mark the posts as correct and/or helpful accordingly. This helps other users with similar trouble get answers to their questions quicker. Thanks.

  • File size deviation between Finder and Quicktime

    Today I encountered a weird phenomenon:
    Some Quicktime .movs show different filesizes in the finder (e.g. 69,3MB) than the same clip has in Quicktime (Command-I says 34,71MB)
    This happens if the clip was opened, truncated and saved (under the same name).
    It still occurs after the computer was restartet.
    Any idea what this may be?

    Hi
    According to the QuickTime help, after you delete parts of a movie, the file size stays the same until you choose File > Save As and select "Save as a self-contained movie". I'm only guessing, but this may be to enable the deletion to be undone, even after the file has been saved.
    I guess the Finder is reporting the raw file size, whereas QuickTime is reporting the size of the edited clip.

  • Incredibly strange file size discrepancy only appears in image files (jpg, gif, png)!

    I'm creating a bunch of banners for google ads, yahoo ads, ...etc in Photoshop on my Mac OS!
    The .gif files of these banners appear to TRIPLE in size when on the MAC (>150KB), but when transferred to windows; the real file size shows correctly! (<50KB)
    It is not a result of the base2 vs base10 discrepancy since the difference in size is simply too big, and it only happens with files created on Photoshop on my Mac.
    The reason I know that windows is showing the correct size while my Mac OS is displaying the wrong size, is that the file gets approved by google and yahoo ads, even though Mac OS shows that it surpasses the size limit (50KB) three times over!
    This isn't an isolated incident either, all image files created in Photoshop on the MAC continue this weird behaviour! However, files downloaded from the net appear to be consistent on both operating systems!
    One example is the attached screenshot:
    Explanation, please??

    Geez, sorry I offended you Mr. Jobs (incarnate)!
    You came in here with a three ton chip on your shoulders. Did you really expect sunshine and puppies in return?
    No, I expected useful help, and I got it from Jeffrey Jones. Thanks again Jeffrey!
    I mean, when you move or upload it, it loses this data association anyways!
    To a drive which doesn't support Apple's AB tree structure (NTFS, FAT, FAT32, exFAT), yes. To another HFS+ drive, no.
    What about uploading the file to the cloud?? Does it lose this association or not?? And does anyone really care about the data in the Resource fork?
    This "Resource Fork" means nothing to the file owner, only to the OS and the Drive. Therefore, it shouldn't be added to the total. Period. Because its not part of the file, its part of Apple's tree structure! This is really a simple concept, not sure why you are bending over backwords to defend a clearly stupid oversight from apple!
    There's no reason to force me to use the command line to get the real file size of a GIF! There's just no excuse for that!
    If an OS is saying it is fetching file size information for a single file, it should do exactly that! Not add hidden Resource Forks that are part of the OS's internal workings
    OS X is fetching the file size. It's file size, not the way a different OS would report it.
    There is no such thing as it's file size. A file size is a file size, accross all platforms, on the cloud, wherever!
    A GIF file should have the same file size whether its on windows, linux, unix, darwin, freeBSD, or anything else. The only time its weight should vary is in outer space!
    That is why I'm surprised that they are breaking simple UI Design rules.
    The User Interface has nothing to do with the file structure of a drive.
    I don't care about the structure of the drive!! Neither should you, neither should the average user!
    A good UI should NOT concern the user with this! The average user doesn't care about these Resource Forks, and will never try to view them, therefore, there is no logical reason to add up their file sizes to the total size of each file, and then to make things worse, hide that fact! That only creates confusion, and it makes it so much harder for a designer like myself to view the REAL file sizes of my image files! Now, whenever I'm on my MAC, I will have to run command line scripts to be able to see if my GIF files (that I work on EVERYDAY) meet the file size quota, because Mac OS adds up hidden files that I have no use for and gives me the WRONG file size!
    Let's say this again: when you select a file and click get info, you should get the info for the file you selcted. Nothing more, nothing less! I don't care if the file structure creates an entire colony of hidden files, they should be completely hidden to me, and if not, the Get Info dialog box should at least give me two sizes, one is the REAL file size, and the other is the added up file size for the Resource Fork as well (although I can't think of any good reason why it should add up the Resource Fork size anyways)!
    do you think it is at all logical, that when you select 300 or so files, and click Get Info, that it open 300 windows at once each showing separate information for each file? Or does it make a lot more sense, intuitively, to get the total tally of all the files selected added up, without having to hold down shortcut keys when clicking them to do so?
    Yes, it is logical because that's what you, the user, told the OS to do. You wanted the Get Info data on 300 individual items. I don't know about you, but I avoid the menu bar as much as possible (your reference to avoiding shortcut keys). Command+I will always give you singular Get Info dialogue boxes.
    No, that's not what I told the OS to do. I selected 300 files cumulatively, therefore, I should get the cumulative info for all the selected files. That's just common sense. Every other OS seems to get this!
    And I'm hard pressed to find anyone who has found a use for having 300 get info boxes open at the same time. Therefore, that shouldn't be the default.
    Will you start defending apple's decision to stick with the one button mouse for all these years depriving us from the all important context menu as well?? There was absolutely no good reason to do that, just as there is absolutely no good reason to do this!

  • File size difference between DNG Converter and Lightroom Beta 4

    Hi,
    I want to go the all-DNG route and am trying several things ATM. I want my files to be as small as possible, thus I disable previews and RAW embedding and enable compression in DNG Converter. In Lightroom, there are no options at all. What I do get, are pretty amazing file size differences:
    Original .NEF as it came from my D70s: ~5MB
    .DNG created by DNG Converter: ~1MB
    .DNG created by Lightroom: ~4MB
    The very small file size in DNG Converter is the one that bother's me most. I get these small files from time to time. I checked both the DNG and the NEF in Photoshop, and they seem to be identical. So my question is: What triggers these small file sizes? Do I loose anything? Or is the Lightroom DNG converter not as advanced as the stand alone version?
    Maybe this helps: I get the ridicolous small files for very dull subjects that tell the computer scientist in me that it should be easily compressable by common compression algorithms.
    Thanks for any pointers,
    Markus

    Thanks for the hint! It did make me revisit those files and now I see the reason for the small file sizes: The Apple Finder does note update the file size view once a file was added to a folder. Here's what I did:
    Opened a folder full of .NEFs in detail view in Finder.
    Converted them using DNG Converter
    Looked at the sizes of the files as they were shown in the Finder window allready open.
    Unfortunately, those file sizes are not correct. If I open a new Finder window of the same folder, file sizes are correctly reported as between 3.5 and 5 MB.

  • Screen Capture File Size Discrepancy

    Can someone please explain to me why the screen capture (cmd-shift-4) generates such huge files?
    I made a screen capture which was saved to my desktop as picture-1.png. Examining the file's properties showed that the file size was 1.03MB.
    Next I opened the file in Photoshop, used Save For Web, and set the file type to PNG-24. This file, which in every way is identical to the original except for file size is only 11kb.
    Why is the OSX screen capture larger by a factor of nearly 100?

    Just by way of illustration, when I take a PNG screenshot of my 23 inch LCD I get a 4.4 MB file. But only if the desktop picture is all that is showing.
    By contrast, a PNG screenshot of the same screen with OSX windows covering the desktop is only 360KB. Why the discrepancy?
    PNG compresses using a raster notation that works at its best when continuous identical pixels cover some horizontal stretch. Just like Mac OSX windows. Noncontinuous colored pixels are very hard for PNG to compress, since there are very few identical colors. This is why photographs should be compressed with JPG (which uses a color averaging scheme) and web animations with PNG.
    The OSX screenshot format uses 32 bit PNG, which is 16.7 million colors. So if you are reducing the bit depth to 24 bits, that is a huge reduction in filesize. Especially if the 24 bit format converts colors to identical runs, which compress better in PNG. I am talking about color variation you can't even see. That would explain the "factor of nearly 100" you noticed.

  • File size difference between version 3 and 4

    I'd like to know how to publish a file at the smallest possible size with Captivate 4.
    I have 1 file that is 9176KB published with Captivate 3. The same file published with Captivate 4 becomes 10300KB. I didn't add any functionality just publish it once saved in 4.
    What is the same content ~1MB bigger with the new version? How do I make it smaller?
    Thanks,

    Thanks for the hint! It did make me revisit those files and now I see the reason for the small file sizes: The Apple Finder does note update the file size view once a file was added to a folder. Here's what I did:
    Opened a folder full of .NEFs in detail view in Finder.
    Converted them using DNG Converter
    Looked at the sizes of the files as they were shown in the Finder window allready open.
    Unfortunately, those file sizes are not correct. If I open a new Finder window of the same folder, file sizes are correctly reported as between 3.5 and 5 MB.

  • How can I auto export a PDF File using the "Smallest File Size" preset and set the Exported File Name based on information from an Imported PDF?

    Greetings all,
    I am trying to create a script to automate a PDF export process for my company for inDesign. I’m fairly new to inDesign itself and have no previous experience with javascript, although I did take C++ in high school and have found it helpful in putting this code together.
    We have an inDesign template file and then use the Multi-page PDF importer script to import PDF files. We then have to export two version of each file that we import, then delete the imported file and all of the pages to reset the template. This has to be done for nearly 1000 pdf files each month and is quite tedious. I’m working on automating the process as much as possible. I’ve managed to piece together code that will cleanup the file much quicker and am now trying to automate the PDF exports themselves.
    The files are sent to us as “TRUGLY#####_Client” and need to be exported as “POP#####_Client_Date-Range_North/South.pdf”
    For example, TRUGLY12345_Client needs to be exported as POP12345_Client_Mar01-Mar31_North and POP12345_Client_Mar01-Mar31_South.
    There are two templates built into the template file for the north and south file that are toggled easily via layer visibility switches. I need to get a code that can ideally read the #s from the imported Trugly file as well as the Client and input those into variables to use when exporting. The date range is found in the same place in the top right of each pdf file. I am not sure if this can be read somehow or if it will have to be input manually. I can put North or South into the file name based on which template layer is visible.
    I am not sure how to go about doing this. I did find the following code for exporting to PDF with preset but it requires me to select a preset and then type the full file name. How can I set it to automatically use the “Smallest File Size” preset without prompting me to choose and then automatically input some or preferably all of the file name automatically? (If the entire filename is possible then I don’t even want a prompt to appear so it will be fully automated!)
    PDF Export Code (Originally from here: Simple PDF Export with Preset selection | IndiSnip [InDesign® Snippets]):
    var myPresets = app.pdfExportPresets.everyItem().name;
    myPresets.unshift("- Select Preset -");
    var myWin = new Window('dialog', 'PDF Export Presets');
    myWin.orientation = 'row';
    with(myWin){
        myWin.sText = add('statictext', undefined, 'Select PDF Export preset:');
        myWin.myPDFExport = add('dropdownlist',undefined,undefined,{items:myPresets});
        myWin.myPDFExport.selection = 0;
        myWin.btnOK = add('button', undefined, 'OK');
    myWin.center();
    var myWindow = myWin.show();
    if(myWindow == true && myWin.myPDFExport.selection.index != 0){
        var myPreset = app.pdfExportPresets.item(String(myWin.myPDFExport.selection));
        myFile = File(File.saveDialog("Save file with preset: " + myPreset.name,"PDF files: *.pdf"));
        if(myFile != null){
            app.activeDocument.exportFile(ExportFormat.PDF_TYPE, myFile, false, myPreset);
        }else{
            alert("No File selected");
    }else{
        alert("No PDF Preset selected");
    So far my code does the following:
    1) Runs the Multi-Page PDF Import Script
    2) Runs PDF Export Script Above
    3) Toggles the Template
    4) Runs #2 Again
    5) Deletes the imported PDF and all pages and toggles template again.
    It’s close and much better than the original process which was almost 100% manual but I’d like to remove the Preset prompt from the PDF script and have it automatically select the “Smallest File Size” preset. and then if there’s a way to have it auto-fill in the file name so no user input is required at all other than selecting each file to import. (If there’s a way to setup a batch action for the multi-import script that would be even better!)
    Thanks in advance and if there’s anything else I can provide that would help please let me know! Even a nudge in the right direction will be a big help!

    If you hold down the option key, it will typically show the location. Or you can often hit option-return on the file and it will reveal the file in the Finder, instead of opening it.
    Final option is to open it, and just option-click the filename in the toolbar of Preview and it should show you the location.
    It's probably an attachment to an email you've received. If you have Mail set to cache emails and their attachments it'll be stashed in a subdirectory of ~/Library/Mail. Which is fine.

  • File size problem between Acrobat 8 and 9

    When I print to a PDF from Acrobat 8 I get a file size that is slightly larger than the original PDF file size.  Example a 1.6 mb file becomes a 1.7mb file.  When I print the same file in Acrobat 9 with the same settings (to my Knowledge) (setting = High Quality Print) I get a file that 36.1mb.
    The reason we would print the file in the fist place is that we need to create a PDF that is ether slightly larger or slightly smaller (say 98%) of the original size.  Can anyone help us figure out why our upgraded version 9 would do this?  We also use 7 and between 7 and 8 there are no defenses but 9 makes the file ~21X the original file size.  Please see that attached JPEG for a screen shot of the file sizes.
    Thank you, -Dan

    Thank you for the quick response.  We are able to get some results through the Optimizer however they are not the same.  Also we would like to keep from adding an extra step into the process.  Especially a step that adds a lot of time to the process as the Optimizer does.  In versions 7 and 8 we did not have run the Optimizer (we also did not have to do this in version 5 back in the day).  Why would 9 have to add this step?  I am really looking for a way to keep the same workflow steps.  -Dan

  • File Sizes Not Showing Up In Finder

    Well lately spotlight has been really slow and sizes for files have not been showing up in spotlight, what could be the problem?
    Here is a screenshot:
    http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1299/picture1av9.png

    I don't think your picture has anything to do with Spotlight. My Applications folder shows up the exact same way. Mac OS X applications aren't usually a single item, they're "packages" with items and folders inside. To get folders and packages to show their size, you'll have to change the "View Options" from the View menu. Check the box on to "Calculate all sizes". I would probably change the dialog box to reflect the changes to "This window only". Otherwise the Finder will be re-calculating the size of everything in every window. That could slow things down a bit.
    -Doug

  • File size doubles from Photoshop CS 5.0/5.1 to CS6

    Hi there,
    if this has been covered already I´m sorry, but anyway...
    Working on a iMac27 with 12Gb Ram. Recently upgraded Photoshop from CS5.0 to 5.1, then shortly thereafter to CS6. What I noticed is that the file size of opened files with layers roughly doubles from CS 5.0/5.1 to 6.0. Everything seems to stay the same with a single-layer file, but not with files with several layers. Opening and saving files seems to have slowed down somewhat, but not drastically, but having a file with fomerly 1,5Gb suddenly increasing to 3,4Gb size is somewhat problematic because of limited Ram, because it effectively limits the amount of layers I can pack into one image file.
    Any input is greatly appreciated!

    Hi, thanks a lot!
    Ok, one after the other:
    Hello, are those document 16bits?
    Yes - I saved a copy from the original file and reduced to 8bit. Slightly less when opened, but not substantially (from 1,51 Gb to 1,3Gb).
    did you add the plugin to disable flate compression?
    No, I wasn´t familiar with this plug in, but doesn´t it say that the file wize wil increase, but saving will be faster? Not sure if it would adress this problem at all.
    Another possible cause would be the compatibility checkbox when you save.
    I tried that (= unclicking the compatibility check box), and the file when unopened on the desktop was much smaller (down to 60Mb from 240Mb). However when opened it was still the same issue.
    Are the settings in the infobar the same?
    Not sure if I understand what you mean.... In the opened file, or getting info on the file on the desktop?
    The filesize is the uncompressed one.
    At the bottom of the image window it gives me 2 numbers: The left one is much smaller (163Mb), the right one is roughly 1,5Gb. Just opened again in PS CS 5.1: Left one is the same, the right one says 633Mb (16-bit file). So CS6 actually makes roughly 2,5 times the file size out of it.
    Did you check on the hard drive if the file size changes?
    Just did, the file size remians the same.
    Kinda surprised that no one else seems to have encounterd this problem. I recall Chris Cox having made a comment about overall sluggishness of CS6 when opening and saving, and he remarked that it´s the "well known" layer management issue in CS6. Not sure if this somehow relates also to my problem.

Maybe you are looking for