File sizes saved in MAC much bigger than saved in PC-is there a fix?

HI everyone -
I searched and couldn't find an answer for this specific issue so Im hoping I can be pointed in the right direction. Appreciate any help with this issue.
About a month ago got a MAC (I upgraded everything and have 12GB RAM so I know it's not the machine). Prior to this was using PC Win 7 ultimate - same deal-AMD Phenom quad core, 8GB RAM (I'm only telling you this because it said to say this when you post-I'm not trying to be a dork)
Here's my issue - I'm using CS5 on both the MAC and the PC. I do layered TIFF files that I eventually save to JPEG. I noticed that when Im saving these files from TiFF to JPEG on the MAC they are bigger than when I do the very same thing-same settings, etc in the PC.
Here is what Im doing - I have my TIFF file open, I flatten it, File - Save As - JPEG. I took the same exact file and put it on both machines to see exactly what the difference was and here is what I got when I chose quality of 8 under Image Options:
On the MAC the file size is 264.2K
On the PC the file size is 137.0K
WHY?? How can I make it stop? I have to have these files under a certain amount when I upload them and my MAC is my main computer so I have to find a fix.
Can anyone possibly help with this?
Thank you in advance!
Susan
edited to add that I am using MAC OSX 10.6.7.

Thank you Marian!~ When I unchecked the boxes under prefs - file handling that say ICON and WINDOWS THUMBNAIL, it changed it all for me in a good way
Now my file sizes are the opposite!
MAC (quality at 8) = 255KB
PC (quality at 8) = 261KB
You're awesome- thank you SOOO much. That was driving me crazy!

Similar Messages

Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?

I was under the impression that original raw files were the biggest possible. I appear to be very wrong. Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?
I'm beginning to think that saving them as psd is a bad idea.
Yes, though I've heard all the arguments of keepng the original raw files (For ex. Did you throw away the negatives when you were using film) I se eno purpose in keeping them. Once I've made the initial adjustments--cropping, color correction etc. I don't feel a need to ever go back and never do. Most of my work is done in Photoshop and I like it that way--but suddenly finding myself with such huge files doesn't appeal to me at all--and other formats like tif...well never mind for now.

Good point made c.pfaffenbichler however, my thinking is this--there is time spent on the raw file and then there is much more time spent on (usually a psd) the file once in Photoshop. For me to then go back to the orignal raw file, after having worked on it on PS would mean getting rid of all the work (larger amount of work, time wise and artistic wise) done on PS which seems pointless. Although the psd file does show your layers and stuff it only shows the end results of that layer. It does not show from where to where you pointed your brush, from what point to what point you changed the color or part of an image etc. etc.Anyhow I understand why most people keep their raw files, but this is the main reason why I do not. It would mean hours of work on an image you already worked on (and usually were satisfied with) to perhaps make some minor alteration. Also please note that though I was noce a pro photog, no I do it mostly for fun. Getting the exact red in my Coca Cola can has never been of importance. On the other hand, if there were a way of working on a raw file within Photoshop and keep it (save it as) a raw file equivalent, then I would absolutely do so.

HT1766 My itunes library is much bigger than what I have on my 64gb ipod touch, so I am on manual sync. I want to upgrade to Ios 5.1, and I have tried to use the backup ipod feature, but it only backed up a little bit of data, nowhere near 64gb. Will I lo

My itunes library is much bigger than the 64gb on my ipod touch, but I want to update the touch to ios5.1. I tried the ipod backuo funnction, but this only produced a small file, much smaller than 64gb. If I upgrade, will i lose all the music and books as currently constituted on the ipod touch?

The iPod backup that iTunes makes does not include synced media like apps and music.. See the following for what it contains.
iTunes: About iOS backups
- Transfer iTunes purchases:
iTunes Store: Transferring purchases from your iOS device or iPod to a computer
- Transfer other music by using a third-party program like one of those discussed here:
newer copy

My Adobe Flash CS6 Color Picker has ODD colors. I'm using Mac Mini OSX 10.8.1. Is there a fix?

My Adobe Flash CS6 Color Picker has ODD colors. I'm using Mac Mini OSX 10.8.1. Is there a fix?
I click on the color picker and where I have seen the normal #0000ff blue color on my windows computer, this mac Mountain lion version shows a purple-ish color. Oddly, If I enter the hex # into the color picker, and use it as a fill, the correct color displays on the stage but when i use the eyedropper on that color, it shows it as the purple color again on the toolbar.
I've seen a similar thing like this happen when using adobe photoshop. However, the usual solution is to just make the managed color profile set to monitor RGB. The only downside with Flash is there is no preference to set that. The color palette in Adobe Photoshop displays as it should with the correct blue.
I should also note that I'm using a Samsung 941bw monitor with my mac mini which could also be part of the problem.
I figured i'd make this post anyway just in case it's the OS & Adobe Flash CS6 and not the monitor.
I've included a screenshot as well that shows that i've chosen the purple color and then made a rectangle shape on the stage and it comes out blue.
Thanks ahead for your response(s)
-Line

Seems misleading that on the adobe site for Adobe Flash CS6 it says:
System requirements:
Mac OS X v10.6.8 or v10.7. Adobe Creative Suite 5, CS5.5, and CS6 applications support Mac OS X Mountain Lion (v10.8) when installed on Intel based systems.**

Why is the saved JPG file much bigger than the original JPG file??

I used Image Processor in Bridge CS5 to open a jpeg, apply sharpening action and save as a jpeg. The bit size, color space and pixel dimensions are identical. However, when I save at Quality 12 I get a Jpeg file that is nearly DOUBLE the size of the original jpeg Only if I drop it to Quality 10 do I get a file that approximates, but doesn't equal, the original jpeg.
1) Isn't 12 the same as saying 100% and as such the file size should be the about the same?
2) why would it increase so much? Example about 6 mb to about 12mb???
Does this sound right? I am sure I am doing the steps and setting the parameters correctly. The action simply applies unsharp mask:
I can set the quality to 10 and get an approximate equivalent file size...but I want the higher quality of a 100%/12 setting.
WHAT AM I MISSING???
Thanks - Kevin

WHAT AM I MISSING???
The simple fact that JPEG is always a fully re-compressing format. Your newly created files bear no relationship to the original ones - no binary data structures are retained; the compression algorithm is always applied fresh upon the fully decoded original image and if you use different settings, the result is different. Moreover, since the initial compression artifacts become "valid pixels" once decoded, the successive compression has no way of knowing that they actually are "bad pixels" and those fine disturbances agfain result in different compression patterns. That is, after alll, why consecutive saves to JPEG will always degrade quality even at the best settings...
Mylenium

Using the Premiere pro CC 2014 exported media file size is much larger than estimate, also is so much bigger than Premiere CS 6?

I used the preset H,264 Youtube 1080HD to export a video. The estimate size is 7308 MB {after I reduce the nitrate). The final size is 11.18 GB.
Why is so much different? Befor I Use the Premiere CS6 to export a simial size use the same format Is around 6GB.

First of all, the estimated file size just an estimate based chiefly on the combination of the bitrate and duration. The actual size can vary significantly, depending in large part on the amount of change from frame to frame throughout the video. For example, if you encode two clips of identical duration to exactly the same settings, the only difference being the nature of the content--say on is a talking head interview shot with the camera locked down on a tripod while the other is skateboarding footage that was shot handheld--the size of two resulting outputs files will be widely divergent.
As to the comparison between CS6 and CC2014, note that the settings for some presets have been changed. For instance, the h.264 YouTube 1080 presets went from 8Mbps to 16.

AE CC - saving projects takes much longer than in CS6

I've noticed that After Effects CC takes much longer to save my current project than previously (about 2-3 minutes). I'm used to saving quite often so this is slowing down my workflow.
The project was imported from AE CS6. I've tried starting a new project and importing the previous one manually (instead of a conversion). Same lag.
All unused footage has been taken out and the footage has been consolidated.
The AE CS6 project file and AE CC file are about 15mb so CC is not any bigger.
There are about 50 files in Arri Raw 3K, the rest is in DPX and ProRes 1080p.
I'm working from a Macbook Pro Retina 16GB Ram and all media and cache are on an external Lacie Big Disk thunderbolt Raid SSD.
My impression is that AE CC is indexing all the files before saving so it's going through all the RAW sequenced files. This could slow down the saving process quite a lot.
Is anyone experiencing the same lag time while saving projects?

I'm having the same issue on my PC, saving is taking much longer and is also happening every time I RAM preview. Very strange, and in fact now its having trouble accessing the save location, a local hard drive. any answers for this isse?

Why is installation file for Exchange Server CU7 much smaller than SP1.iso?

I was wondering why is the ISO-Image for Exchange Server 2013 with SP1 4.5 GB in size and the CU7.EXE only 1.6 GB? I thought CU7 contains everything SP1 contains. Is it because one is a disk image and an other an executable?

The EXE is compressed. When you extract it, it should be close to the same size (probably bigger) than the SP1 iso.
Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread

Firefox 3.6.3 mac crashes after playing a few youtubes, is there a fix?

Firefox 3.6.3 mac, will often crash after playing a few YouTubes or navigating within youtube pages. Are others having this problem? Is there a fix?
== URL of affected sites ==
http://www.youtube.com

Hello Greg.
Make sure your Flash plugin is up to date. If it is and the problems are still there, you may be having a problem with some extension or plugin that is hindering your Firefox's normal behavior. Have you tried disabling all add-ons, except Flash (just to check), to see if Firefox goes back to normal?

Trying to stop a download - realised it is MUCH bigger than first thought. I keep deleting it, but keeps coming up on list for downloading. Any ideas?

Please help. Want to stop a download. How??

Please help. Want to stop a download. How??

Exchange 2010 - 2013 Public Folder Migration target database gets much bigger than source database

Hi,
i have a question about the pf migration from Exchange 2010 to Exchange 2013. The source database ist about 370 GB. The migration process is still running. At the moment the target database is already 491GB big. Is that a normal behaviour during the migration
process.
Thanks

Hi,
After you have finished the public folder migration process, you can compare the item count of public folders to make sure all public folders have been moved to Exchange 2013.
You can check this by comparing the snapshots before and after the migration. You can refer to the "How do I know this worked?" section in the following article.
Migrate Public Folders to Exchange 2013 From Previous Versions
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj150486(v=exchg.150).aspx
Best regards,
Belinda
Belinda Ma
TechNet Community Support

Acrobat Mac optimizes to bigger file sizes than on Win?

Hello,
I thought I am reasonably savvy when it comes to using Acrobat's PDF optimizer. But recently people have begun telling me that Acrobat Mac seemingly generally produces bigger files than the Windows version. That seems quite unbelievable to me but some preliminary tests do seem to indicate that Mac file sizes are quite a bit bigger than those produced on Windows.
Has anyone heard of this yet or had any personal experience?

So I tried generating the same PDFs on two other computers that have Acrobat 9 Pro. Results were reproduced. The verdict is:
- complex PDF files (that is, containing cross-references, tables of contents, and bookmarks) generated by Acrobat 9.x Pro are roughly 2-5x larger than the identical file generated with Acrobat 8.x Pro.
- different PDF conversion settings make a negligable difference (less than 10% rather than 70-80%).
- using the "Reduce File Size" or "Optimize PDF" option cuts the file size roughly in half, almost always resulting in a "image downsampling mask" warning message, which requires acknowledgement (that is a problem for batch processing or automation).
- adding an Acrobat watermark to the file cuts the file size roughly in half.
- just using Save As to another filename has no effect on file size.
- generating the PDF in Acrobat 9 with links but no PDF bookmarks still results in the inflated file size.
- generating the PDF in Acrobat 9 without any links or bookmarks results in approximately the same file size as the Acrobat 8 PDF with full links and bookmarks.
It appears that Acrobat 9's manner of adding links is what's bloating the files, and in my case it's probably not related to images or image resolution/print quality. It's a shame, because Acrobat 9 seems to have made some improvements to the Review Tracker interface, and a few other bells and whistles which I haven't really gotten around to exporing yet. But unless I find a way to keep my links and the PDF file sizes comparable to what I was getting with Acrobat 8 Pro, it looks like I'm going to stay with Acrobat 8.

Why Index size is bigger than table size?

Dear All,
I found in my database my tables sizes is coming around 30TB (All Tables in Database). and my index size for the same is 60TB. This is data ware housing environment.
How the index size and table size are differing?
Why they are differing? why index size is bigger than table size?
How to manage the size?
Please give me clear explanation and required information on the above.
Regards
Suresh

There are many reasons why the total space allocated indexes could be larger than the total space allocated to tables. Sometimes it's a mark of good design, sometimes it indicates a problem. In your position your first move is to spend as little time as possible in deciding whether your high-level summary is indicative of a problem, so you need to look at a little more detail.
As someone else pointed out - are you looking at the sizes because you are running out of space, or because you have a perceived performance problem. If not, then your question is one of curiosity.
If it's about performance then you should be looking for code (either through statspack/AWR or sql_trace) that is performing badly and use the analysis of that code to help you identify suspect indexes.
If it's about space, then you need to do some simple investigations aimed at finding a few indexes that can be "shrunk" or dropped. Pointers for this are:
select
        table_owner, table_name, count(*)
from
        dba_indexes
group by
        table_owner, table_name
having
        count(*) > 2   -- adjust to keep the output short
order by
        count(*) desc;This tells you which tables have the most indexes - check the sizes of the tables and indexes and then check the index definitions for the larger tables with lots of indexes.
Second quick check - join dba_tables to dba_indexes by table_name, and report the table blocks and index leaf blocks in desending order of leaf block count. Look for indexes which are very big, and also bigger than their underlying tables. There are special cases (and bugs) that can cause indexes to be much bigger than they need to be ... this report may identify a couple of anomalies that could benefit from an emergency fix followed (possibly) by a strategic fix.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis

Why is that saving as PDF increase the file sizes?

Hola
I've been notice that when I save a file as PDF, in CS5 it increase the file size to double that before.
Even saving it with the same setting than before.
For example, most of my Business Card file that I sent to print, use to be 1.5 or so megabytes
Now if I open the same file, --or a new file-- and save it, it will increase it to double that size
Any ideas?
Thanks

Hola and Thanks for your help
Ok, I've been using Photoshop since version 6 or so (around year 2000)
Just upgrade to CS5
Before, for example, I'll make a file in PS, merge the layers, open a new file whit the same dimensions, resolution etc,
and save this file as PDF to send to printers.
Tthe file(s) that I have or were create them in CS4, than saved as PDFs have a file sizes of 1 to 2 megabytes as average.
The NEW files (in the same sequence) that I create now, have an average of 3 Mbytes
Even do, I save them with the same --I believe-- setting in PDF
There's may be a new feature in PDF save dialogue box that I'm not getting?
or, it just more information that it is put into?
Thanks

Saving jpeg and png files large file size

Ive recently purchased web premium 5.5 and Im trying to save files in jpeg and png format in Photoshop and Im getting unexpectedly large file sizes, for example I save a simple logo image 246x48 which consists of only 3 basic colours and when I save it as a jpeg quality 11 it reports the file size in the finder as 61.6k, I save it as a png file and its 60.2k also I cropped the image to 190x48 and saved it as a png and the file size is actually larger at 61.9k saving as a jpeg at quality 7 the files size is a still relatively large 54k.
I have a similar png non indexed colour logo on my mac I saved in CS3 on a pc which is actually larger at 260x148 and it's only 17k and that logo is actually more complex with a gloss effect over part of it. Whats going on and how do I fix it, It's making Photoshop useless especially when saving for the web
Thanks

Thanks I had considered that but all my old files are reporting the correct files sizes I have been experimenting and fireworks saves the file at png 24 at 2.6k and jpegs at 5.1k, but I don't really want to have to save the files twice once cut from the comp in photoshop and again in fireworks juggling between the two applications is a bit inconvenient even with just one file but especially when you have potentially hundreds of files to save.
Ive also turned off icon and windows thumbnail in photoshop preferences and although this has decreased the file size they are still quite large at 27k and save for the web is better at 4k for the png and 16k for the jpeg. Is there anyway to get Fireworks file saving performance in Photoshop ? it seems strange that the compression in Photoshop would be second rate in comparison to fireworks given they are both developed by Adobe and Photoshop is Adobes primary image editing software.

File sizes saved in MAC much bigger than saved in PC-is there a fix?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for