How to reduce size of RAW & PSD files after all adjustments are finished?

I thought I read something about an Aperture feature that reduces file size of RAW files to something like a large .jpg file. I have finished adjusting many RAW files and could better use the disc space for other things. Is there any such feature or procedure? I have not upgraded to Aperture 2.0 but will soon.
Also, after making the round-trip to PhotoShop Elements, I see a large PSD file. Can I shrink that file after all adjustments are made?

If you're using referenced files in Aperture, you can archive the raw files onto a CD or some other place and delete the original. Just make sure Aperture is set to generate previews before you do this. That way you can see the file even after it's gone. You can't export or make any adjustments unless you can re-link the raw file.
And as far as PSD files, you should change your preferences to use TIFF for external editors. Then at least you can save the file in Photoshop as a compressed TIFF, which can save quite a bit of room. Also, I've noticed that Aperture uses 16-bit TIFF files, so you can save even more room by converting the file to an 8-bit TIFF.
By the way, take note that while Aperture defaults to ".tiff" as it's file suffix for TIFF files, Photoshop prefers ".tif". This can cause confusion. You've been warned.

Similar Messages

How to reduce size or compress PDF files?

Hi guys,
Does someone knows if there is a way to reduce the size of the PDF file with good quality even on Pictures and Scanned documents? I know the option 'export', 'quartz filter' 'reduce size', but the compression is so extrem. Many files can't not been read, the quality is so bad. Is there a additional app, software or extension that let the user play with the compression on pdf files and let it be more personalized like the dopdf V7 available for windows? i am very dissapointed with this. Please help or suggestion. I will appreciate it. Thanks

I have used the excellent PDF Toolkit app for a while, and its preformed well. Occassionaly it makes the document into a negative image...which Im noyt sure why...
Mathishk, im trying your online version out, and am impressed and admire the fact that you have done this.
Well done.
A TRICK i use often. Once all hires images are on the designed document - and its coming in at 15-20mb, just change the link to the images so they are 'missing' then make a pdf.
i.e 'Hi Res images' to HRes images - old'
The screen resolution of images is still great, but file comes in at fraction of the size.
You 'trick' the document to use screen images only. So my 18mb file comes in as 5.2mb.
Just remember to change the images folder name back, so files relink.
Andy

How to reduce size of a PDF file without loss of sharp graphics

Hi, I'm working in Acrobat Pro X. I have combined a file of graphics, and need to reduce the size. Original graphics were created in PScs6, and saved as .jpg's. What would be the best way to reduce the overall size of the PDF file and still maintain the clarity of the graphics? Advice would be appreciated.

When you are dealing with graphics, you are almost always talking about reducing the resolution or color depth. A lot depends on the graphics themselves. You might check one of the graphics and see what the color depth and resolution are. The 300 dpi setting is fine in most cases, unless you are wanting folks to zoom in. For many applications a color depth of 256 is fine rather than millions of colors. If those are acceptable options, be sure your graphics are set that way. You can try the Optimize to see if you can improve the size and still have adequate resolution (File>Save As>Optimize PDF).

How to reduce size of iPhoto library ? (after the usual auto-rotate issue)

Hi,
This is my first message here, even I am oftenly reading and searching these forums...
I found many topics about this issue of "auto-rotate settings on camera, that will increase the size of the library".
Thanks Terrence and also Toad, for replying millions of time, to the same question.
(I was actually surprise that you don't have a topic, with all info, and you would simply point the guys to that same topic..., instead of writing again and again..)
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=12294301#12294301
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=12405190#12405190
etc.. etc...
Summary:
I have started a new library, with the birth of my son, 7 months ago.
I was going to move it and realized : 15Gb, with 5Gb in the "modified" folder.
After looking around here, I found the reason.
And now, the auto-rotate is turned off on my cameras. (and I will try your Xee, to rotate before importing to iPhoto)
Now, my question:
What can I do, with my existing library?
Is there a way to reduce it? to get rid of all the rotated pictures? (could I delete the one in Original folder?
Only solution is to reimport all, in a new library ? (I can't imagine doing again all the events... even if it's only 7 months worth of pictures...)
Thanks for your info and suggestions.
Thierry.

I don't know of any software to remove that tag. If you did and imported the files they would be displayed in the landscape orientation which is not how they were taken. So if you wanted to view them correctly you'd have to rotate them from within iPhoto thus creating a modified version and be back from where you started.
Your best bet would be to go thru the photos using Quicklook to find those portrait oriented photos and use Xee to rotate before importing.
Or use a different DAM (digital asset management) application that can handle those types of files without creating modified versions. I use Expression Media which lets me rotate the files from inside the application without creating modified files.

How to reduce size pdf file with 10.5.8

How to reduce size pdf file with 10.5.8, I know it can be done with snow....

Look at this link.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1292868?start=0&tstart=0
 Cheers, Tom

How can I keep my RAW photo files from converting to JPEG???

How can I keep my RAW photo files from converting to JPEG???

Hello briggiebunny
If iTunes can read the movie files, then you will need to create an iPad version by going to the drop down menu File > Create New Version > Create iPad or Apple TV Version and then syncing that newly created file.
iTunes: Videos may be unable to sync to iPhone, iPad, or iPod
http://support.apple.com/kb/ts1497
Regards,
-Norm G.

How do I open a raw NEF file in Photoshop cs6? [was: Raw Files]

How do I open a raw NEF file in photoshop cs6?

Browse to the folder in Bridge, then right-click Open in Camera Raw, then in ACR, Open.
Or if you’re already in Photoshop: File or Photoshop if on a Mac / Open / browse to the file / Open.
If you get an error that the format is not supported then either the camera is too new or you’ve used an obsolete version of Nikon products like Transfer or ViewNX to copy or view the NEFs and they are corrupted.
Help / Updates is how you get the latest version of the Camera Raw plug-in.
You can use a utility from here to fix the corruption:
http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/fix_corrupted_nef.html

How do I import iPhoto raw (NEF) files into Lightroom 3.6?

how do I import iPhoto raw (NEF) files into Lightroom 3.6?

You will need an application that can convert those pcd files into one that iPhoto supports, mainly jpeg. GraphicConverter is supposed to support many, many formats and might just support the pcd. If so you could use it to convert them to jpegs.
There's an automator workflow that I've put into an application that will take many image files and convert them into jpeg with the RGB color profile. I've never tried it on the Kodak files but you can give it a try. It's called +*Convert to JPG and Embed sRGB profile*+ and can be downloaded from Toad's Cellar. Make a copy of a couple of files and see if it will work. If so then you can batch convert folders of the files at once by dragging them onto the application.
I believe GC can do batch conversions but am not familiar with the application.

How to reduce size of the executables

Colleagues,
I just would like to share small tip, which may be useful for someone else.
Sometimes size of LabVIEW - based executable is pretty big (especially if you have placed arrays or graphic on the front panel, then set values as default, etc). Time to time we have discussed - how to reduce size of the builded executable. One possible soultion is open source Ultimate Packer for eXecutables - UPX and it seems to be OK for LabVIEW - based apps. Also command line arguments passed correctly.
For example, Vision Assistant (which is LabVIEW-written itself) packed from 7 MB to 5 MB and works.
with best regards,
Andrey.

In the days of <$100 1TB HDs and 20mbps FIOS, this seems less and less of a real problem that needs to be solved.
I am curious if this works also with older LabVIEW executables. Many years ago I was beta testing a similar utility and it would break LabVIEW executables. They were able to work around it but the compression benefit was less.
Just curious.
From the UPX documentation:
"Obviously UPX won't work with executables that want to read data from themselves"
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

How to load other obejects in flash file after intro using ActionScript 3.0

How to load other obejects in flash file after intro using ActionScript 3.0 or any other method all in same fla file. see blow intro screen shot ,this one playing repeatedly without loading other fla pages .only way to load other pages is click on Skip intro .see second screeshot below .i need that site to load after intro .
see codes already in
stop();
skipintro_b.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, skipintro_b_clicked);
function skipintro_b_clicked(e:MouseEvent):void{
gotoAndStop("whoweare");
There is another script there
/* Simple Timer
Displays a countdown timer in the Output panel until 30 seconds elapse.
This code is a good place to start for creating timers for your own purposes.
Instructions:
1. To change the number of seconds in the timer, change the value 30 in the first line below to the number of seconds you want.
var fl_TimerInstance:Timer = new Timer(1000, 30);
fl_TimerInstance.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER, fl_TimerHandler);
fl_TimerInstance.start();
var fl_SecondsElapsed:Number = 1;
function fl_TimerHandler(event:TimerEvent):void
trace("Seconds elapsed: " + fl_SecondsElapsed);
fl_SecondsElapsed++;
i have no knowledge about these thing ,any help really appreciated .

Ned Murphy Thank you very Much .It is working .Great advice

How can I reduce size of a PDF file?

My PDF file is 20MB. How can I reduce its size?

I used the"File > Save as Other > Reduced Size PDF" method and reduced a 4 MB pdf down to about 2.7 MB.
I then just printed the same file out to the Print PDF (not sure of the exact name) print driver. When you install Adobe Acrobat, it adds a virtual printer to your list of available printers. When you print to it, you don't get an actual print out, you just get a new PDF file. This method reduced the same 4 MB pdf down to about 1.5 MB.
I find it weird that their Reduced Size PDF method gave inferior results. Why don't they just have that function do whatever printing to the virtual printer does?

File size augments after editing a form? How to reduce size?

Hello,
I have been building a form and found that the size of my file grew after I made 'edits' onto (ie: changing the wording of the original form scanned onto Acrobat Pro X, changing the font colour some letters etc.)
Question 1: Is this normal?
Question 2: How to reduce the size of the file? (I am aware of the option that I could save the pdf into a version that's higher (by selecting anything between 6 to 10) and that would reduce the size of the pdf.
BUT, I also learned that if the end-user, who will receive my form and fill it in, do not have that particular version that I've saved it to, then s/he could not fill in the form!!
Is there a solution to my problem? Please help!
*I am using Acrobat Pro X.

Thank you all for your responses!
Yes, I always save my file as PDF. Just not reduced its size by saving it to a particular version.
to 'Test Screen Name', there is a misunderstanding on option 2. I referred to it so that I can save the file into a version like version 8.0 or higher. But, I understood from earlier discussions in the forum here, that people may still have earlier versions of reader (ie 6.0 or lower?) and so that's why I suggested having a link for download.
Even with that, I don't know how savvy my end-users may be to download. I 've had problems where people read my file using Apple and that caused problems.

How to reduce size of the a PowerPoint with embedded swf files (SAP Dashboard)

I have just installed SAP Dashboard and converted all the previous graphs from Xcelsius 2008 to this new version (save new graphs). After exporting to PowerPoint all these new graphs, the PowerPoint file with all of these graphs has increased dramatically in a double size file. How can I do to reduce this size?

Hi,
List Box Builder may cause an issue .
http://everythingxcelsius.com/xcelsius-2008/3-xcelsius-2008-components-to-avoid/27
Also I did not try the linke below but check if it helps you .
http://myxcelsius.com/2009/03/18/reduce-the-size-of-your-xlf-and-swf-files/

How to reduce size of a Q/T file

Hi,
I have a 6.5GB self contained Q.t Movie which i need to reduce in size/compress in order for me to be able to transfer the file on to dvd which can be opened on any computer.
The dvd space is 4.7GB.
Thanks,
Maz

The size of your QT file does not matter. It could be 100GBs and it would still be OK.
When you put the file in iDVD or any other DVD making app, that app will convert and compress the file to a size that will fit on a DVD.
When using iDVD the only thing that matters is the length of the video. iDvd will only burn movies up to 2 hours long.
Other apps like DVDSP and Toast will permit the burning of videos lasting much longer.

How to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2?

Hello,
Is there any way to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2
simular to
DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded
Many thanks

Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.
When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
(and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
1.
Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
2.
Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
3.
Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
4.
"Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
5.
Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
6.
Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
7.
Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
8.
Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
9.
Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
10.
Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
11.
Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
12.
Computer really slow after latest updates
13.
Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
14.
Why can't windows 7 install updates?
15.
Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
16.
How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
17.
Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
18.
Updates causes endless reboots
19.
Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
20.
Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
Microsoft understated the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements at install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increases to alarming levels as you install more service packs and
post SP-updates. You can find out the real size of the WinSxS folder using a tool like cttruesize (ctts.exe) (download it from
http://www.heise.de/software/download/cttruesize/50272 and run ctts -la -a -l C:\Windows to find the correct size minus the hard links which MS says causes Explorer to misreport the WinSxS
folder size but the fact remains that even with the correctly calculated size of WinSxS, the disk space requirements of Windows 7 to keep it updated are unacceptable, especially for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

How to reduce size of RAW & PSD files after all adjustments are finished?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for