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).

Similar Messages

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.

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!

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 Discrepancy

I hope somebody can help me! I have a Quicktime self-contained movie which in the "Get Info" option says that it's 2.26 GB, but in the Quicktime "Show Movie Info" option it says it's data size is 55MB. Why the discrepancy?
Power Mac G5 Dual 2.3 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.7)

I don't understand. Do you mean the higher figure is it's actual file size?
If I assume both of the above readings were in fact taken using the same file as the source (i.e., you did not use the original source file for the first measurement and a final converted file for the second), then yes, that is exactly what I mean. I don't know how you measure the size of a file, but I take it to be the amount of space required to store the file on a hard drive. Now it is possible that a file can be corrupted and contain many "empty" or "unused" data blocks. So I cannot rule out this possibility here. If you have reason to doubt the "file size," simply try copying it from one hard drive to another and see if both copies require the same amount of space for storage.

Photoshop file size

I am editing a DVCPRO 16x9 sequence. What size or dimensions should the Photoshop files (photos and graphics) be? My thought is 720 x 486 at 125 resolution. Any help would be great.

Well, there's a coupla routes you can go...
You're right that the video clips are all 720x480 with wide pixels, so you can do gfx that way and stretch them to fit (with the distort pane of the motion panel in the viewer), or you can use 853x480 so you can compose in a widescreen format while in PhotoShop...
Patrick

Vault (external) file size Versus Aperture Library (internal) file size discrepancy?

Using Aperture 3.3.1 (all my images are Referenced). I created my first vault on an external hard drive. The Vault.apvault file size is 32.8 GB. My Aperture Library.aplibrary file size on my iMac hard drive is 81.6 GB. So I am wondering if I have a full back-up in Vault or not. Seems like a large discrepency in file size. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

Do any Images that you don't expect show up when you filter "Photos" using the Rule "File Status" with the argument "Managed"?
If not, then close Aperture and repair your database. Instructions are on the Apple Aperture trouble-shooting page.
Does that make any difference?

Why Such a Huge Photoshop File Size Increase When Saving In CC from other versions?

Hello,
I have limited experience in Photoshop, and am working with a file with two other people. We are creating web comic pages. The line artist and colorist are both using CS 6. I have CC. The file I receive from them is around 238MB. If I open it and make even the slightest edit, Photoshop will not save it as it warns that the file size is too large (greater than 2GB!). How does this happen? Is it something in my preferences that causes 10x increase in file size?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks!

Thanks for replying. First I didn't have this problem in the beginning. I do the same in CS5 and I can do it with no problem.

IPhoto DB file size discrepancy

I had my macbook pro stolen, but a week before I backed up my iPhoto DB 15.7GB file using Finder to copy/paste the file to an external drive. I copied the backed up iPhoto DB file to my new Macbook Air, but now iPhoto is missing a large amount of pictures. When I launch iPhoto now, it says I have 923x pictures using 4.3GB. I am lost as to how I can recover the remaining 11.4GB and why they're not being displayed. What's interesting is that I used iPhoto Library Manager Rebuild option and it rebuilt my DB to a new file and that DB is only 5.04GB. This makes more sense and proves I'm missing 11GB+ of photos. Any assistance and guidance is greatly appreciated!

Depress teh option key and launch iPhoto - use the select library option to select the library on the EHD and see if iPhoto will open it
You can go to the EHD and reight click on the iPhoto library there and show package contents - are the photos in the masters folder (look - do NOT change anything) - if they are not then you need to have another source for them
For the future copy and paste is NOT a good way to work with the iPhoto library - it is best to drag it to the new location to be sure that an exact copy is made
LN

Difference in file size in photoshop and bridge

when I save an image in photoshop (file size 26mb) it shows as a 70.7 mb in bridge or window explorer. Why?

fotonut1 wrote:
The 26 mb number is found when I go to image size (alt cntrl I
Lets take a look at the Image Sise Dialog. Nothing in it indicates anything about any file size. One number in it I have never been able t figure exactly how Adobe come up with and the is Pixel Dimensions Number all others I understand.
Below is a screen capture of the dialog shows 91.4M ???
3264x4896 is the 3:2 my Cannon 1D4 16MP the first calculator is
3264x4896=15980544 I can by the camera sensor is 16.1 MP but only delivers an image 15.98MP
Its 16bit color so each pixel has 3 16bit values for RGB 6 bytes per pixel
15980544x6=95883264 bytes 95.9M not 91.4M
If 91.4 is in hex M 1028 is 1K so 1M 1028000 bytes is 1M
91.4x1028000=93959200 still short of the 95883264 bytes required so I do not how Adobe come up with the 91.4M #
Any way 3264x4896 is canvas size. Has nothing to to with file size.
Photoshop also supports layers and layers can be canvas size or larger then canvas size as well as smaller then canvas.
Additionally layers can contain embedded object and object could contain a layer file like a placed PSD image.
The center section Document Size is the documents Print here you see the document currentle has a 240DPI resolution
3264pixel width / 240 dpi = 13.6"
4896pixel height / 240 dpi = 20.4"
The bottom section is the control section. With resample NOT checked the top can not be changed Pixel Dimensions will not be changed nor would File size. And all three values in print size are linked. You change one value and Photoshop will chage the other two for you. With resample NOT checked the other controls are not settable. Pixel Dimensions are not change so no interpolation and no aspect ratio change.
With Resample checked Constrain Proportions will link width and height to preserv the current aspect ratio and not distort the image.
When you save a document file format is very important layered flat compression all play a roll. It very hard to even guess what the file size will be.

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?

Photoshop image size vs Bridge

A very basic question that I've not been able to find the answer to. My Raw images come up in Bridge at around 20-25 MB, 16 bit. When I open them in Photoshop they all seem to have identical Pixel sizes at 120.3 M and 5616 x 3744 pixels (ie total 21 MPixels) even when my images in Bridge are all slightly different sizes depending on content. What exactly is the 120.3 M if it isn't Bytes or Pixels and why is it constant for a particular camera? It obviously relates to bits and bytes because it goes down to 60.2 for 8 bit images. When I worked with jpegs I thought the fact that the Photoshop file size was larger was related to the compression of the closed file, but that's clearly not the case with CR2 files. Please help - I really want to understand this!

When sending pictures to libraries it is the flattened uncompressed size they want.
Documents can be altered to the required size using a script IE:-
var SizeOfFile = prompt("Please Enter Size In Megabytes",48)
if (SizeOfFile > 0) resizeToMB( SizeOfFile );
function resizeToMB( size_in_MB ) {
var current_units = preferences.rulerUnits;
preferences.rulerUnits = Units.PIXELS;
var width_pixels = activeDocument.width;
var height_pixels = activeDocument.height;
var channel_count = activeDocument.channels.length;
var final_size = ( 1024 * 1024 * size_in_MB ) / channel_count;
var image_bytes = width_pixels * height_pixels;
var image_scale = Math.sqrt( final_size/ image_bytes );
var final_width = width_pixels * image_scale;
var final_height = height_pixels * image_scale;
var final_dpi = activeDocument.resolution;
if ( image_scale > 1 ) {
activeDocument.resizeImage( final_width, final_height, final_dpi, ResampleMethod.BICUBICSMOOTHER );
} else {
activeDocument.resizeImage( final_width, final_height, final_dpi, ResampleMethod.BICUBICSHARPER );
preferences.rulerUnits = current_units;

How do I find out the size of each individual element within a photoshop file as need to replace some elements? Thanks :)

How do I find out the size of each individual element within a photoshop file as need to replace some elements? Thanks

What do you mean by "Elements"?
Elements in a flat image or Layers?
Could you please post a screenshot with the Layers Panel visible?

Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with CS3 and CS6 and get the same problem. Doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with both CS3 and CS6 on 10.8.2 and get the same problem. This doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

this one is actually a really rare symptom of a flaky connection to the ipod on a Windows PC. there's more going on in terms of hardware on nanos and 5th gens than in the earlier models ... so if the connection is flaky to precisely the right/wrong degree, itunes will see the ipod, but misidentify it as an earlier version of ipod.
tracking down the cause of the flakiness can be tricky ... as you already know ...
just checking. have you tried connecting with a different (known-good) USB cable? does that seem to have any impact on the rate of occurence of the problem?

File size different in Bridge CS3 and Photoshop

I'm using PS CS3 and Bridge CS3 on a Macbook Pro. I have about 40 files that are about 50MB when opened in PS. In Bridge, under the thumbnails, the file size is pretty close to that, sometimes the exact amount, sometimes off by a couple/few MBs. I've been told this is due to some compression "on the disk" by Bridge. All the files are PSDs, by the way, and they are all flattened.
What I don't understand is why just a *few* files that are 50MB in PS are showing up MUCH smaller in Bridge; e.g., 36MB. If it's due to compression, why would Bridge compress just a few files so much?
I'm wondering if this has to do with the cached thumbnails, and maybe the thumbnails aren't showing the latest version (with accurate size) of the file. I don't know much about the cache, and I'm afraid to "purge the cache" without knowing anything about it. Also, if it has to do with preferences, I'm don't really know about that, either.

Bridge does not compress any files whatsoever. Bridge is not an image editor, it's nothing but a browser that hands the files to their respective applications. Bridge does not "open" or "save" files, it can't compress them in any shape or form.
What you are seeing is the difference between the opened, uncompressed file in RAM and the space the file occupies on disk once
Photoshop has saved and compressed it.
The Bridge cache has nothing to do with any of this.

Photoshop file size Discrepancy

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for