V2V to reduce provisioned size of VM while powered-on: How? vCenter 5.5

Unfortunately, VMware Converter does not allow you to do post-conversion synchronizations when shrinking a disk, only when maintaining or increasing the size. This means you would lose all changes that happen after the conversion starts. The only supported way to do this with the VM turned on is using Storage vMotion, if you have that feature.
The sdelete process is actually quite safe when done correctly, but the second part of the process -- removing zeroed blocks from the VMDK -- does require the VM to be turned off when it runs.

So, I have a VM that's grown unnecessarily large and I need to shrink the provisioned size, but I rarely have a chance to power it off. Is it possible to do a V2V with VMware Converter while the VM is powered on and running? The VMDK of the VM in question is Thin-Provisioned currently. I have read this can be done with SDelete, but that is a dangerous route. This a production machine that we heavily rely on, so I need to go the safest route possible. Thank you....
This topic first appeared in the Spiceworks Community

Similar Messages

Reducing File Size in Pages

I have a book I have written in Pages. It has lots of photos. When I make a pdf, it's about 380 Megs and is larger still in the pages format--nearly 500 megs.
The publishing company online has a maximum size limit of 400 megs for the pdf file. The book is in Spanish, but I'm making a bilingual version which will double the size. Obviously that will be too big in the end.
I've used the Pages reduce file size feature but while it reduces it WAY down, the photos inside are kind of blurry.
Is there a way to reduce LESS? It's all for nothing and your pages file goes from 500 or so to 11 or so megs.
Can I reduce the file's size but not so much?
Thanks,
Tom in Arizona

1. Make a schedule of the image sizes from the Graphic inspector. Use TextEdit or the like. Alternatively hand write it on a print out or as a Text box label over.
2. Gather up your images in an Images folder. Helps if you dupe and tag the images according to Fig No. or page number at the beginning of the file name (so they fall in order).
3. Work your way systematically through the images:
     a. Trim the image as it appears in Pages
     b. Change its resolution to 300dpi at size (for commercial printing)
          DO NOT SCALE UP.
     c. Color Correct and add sharpening as needed
4. Make a duplicate of the file (for safety) and drag back the edited images into their locations. Hopefully you have made the images placeholders.
5. Use this .pages file to print from if your Printer will accept it, otherwise Print to .pdf so it maintains its resolution.
7. If keeping the file size down is important, Use Pages '09 not Pages 5 and use as much vector artwork/font artwork as possible in place of bitmap photos.
Thinking ahead and being systematic pays off on any large project.
Peter

How to reduce file size in Acrobat XI?

How can I to reduce the file size is Acrobat XI Pro? Up until v.9, it was just a matter of opening the pulldown menu Documents > Reduce File Size. and then some more. How's that done in the newer versions of Acrobat?
This was simple and easy:

Works like a charm... I have a pdf file of a A1 size drawing that went from 6,7 to 1.7 Mb. The rendered image became slightly grainier (hardly noticable), but the text recognition stayed intact. Magnificent!
FYI I've tested this file size reduction in three different runs:
Save As Other... > Reduced Size PDF... (Acrobat 1.4 comp.) 1,69 Mb
Save As Other... > Reduced Size PDF... (Acrobat 1.6 comp.) 1,75 Mb
Save As Other... > Optimized PDF... 1,73 Mb

Reducing app size and using memory

Building with release preference Blank App template will give you a ~200kb .exe, which in running state use ~7mb of memory.
It has a huge list of external dependencies.
So, is it possible to reduce app size and using memory?
Or, how safely unlink from app headers that really didnt used?

generally speaking premature optimization is not a good idea.
Normally those tricks we learned from stone age are picked by tools already.
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6215782/do-unused-functions-get-optimized-out)
So if you experice performance/optimization issue
optimization ususally goes with repeated measure -> optimize -> verify
cycles.

How to reduce size of image while uploading it in livecycle pdf.

Hi,
I have created a pdf with Image field using live cycle designer.
I have selected "Sizing: Scale Image to fit Rectangle".
Now the problem is the pdf which i have created is 1.5MB and if i import or upload a 2.5MB image in image field then the size of pdf becomes 6MB.
I have around 20 image fields in my pdf report , so if people keep uploading high resolution images in the pdf then the pdf becomes more then 15MB, slow and unmanagable.
Is there any way by which even if I upload a 5MB image the it should automatically reduce image size?
As the users does not bother to reduce the size of image they just upload high resolution and large size image in pdf.
Please tell me the way through which i can reduce the image size automatically while uploading.
Regards,
Kartik Shrivastava

Hi Prashat
I tried by reducing the size of container , But scroll bars appears automatically .
The size of Picture remains same .
Please tell me if there is any option to fix the size of container ... so that picture reduces its size automatically .
Thanks & Regards
Shaveta

How can I attach several images to my Outlook Mac 2011 email message and have all of the images reduced in size while they are being sent out. Thank you

How can I attach several images to my Outlook Mac 2011 email message and have all of the images reduced in size while they are being sent out. Thank you

https://discussions.apple.com/message/11994130#11994130

I use Adobe Acrobat Pro XI (11.0.08) When performing "Save as" "Reduced file size pdf" Adobe processes for a while then completely stops, and has to close down. Just started doing that today.

I use Adobe Acrobat Pro XI (11.0.08) When performing "Save as" "Reduced file size pdf" Adobe processes for a while then completely stops, and has to close down. Just started doing that today.

I have Windows 8.1, and when I right click on the Windows flag (bottom left), the menu gives me a "Search" option. When I enter "%temp%", it goes to " "my username"/ appdata/temp" which is a list of file 1718 file folders. Many are empty but I did a small sample. Is that the right place to delete? I tried Windows- Disk Clean, but that did not help.

Enterprise Features: Reduced Disk Size Requirements (Provisioning)

Hello,
as an Enterprise-Admin, I am really glad to hear that MS wants to do more for their Enterprise Customers.
One thing that drives admins into madness, is the fact, that since Vista/W7, the HDD blows up like stupid.
Even a fresh installation, after all the patches are installed, has around 30GB of (actual) Size.
If you use provisioned machines, thats a real pain and makes my network cry
With XP (RIP) that was like 5 GB.
I do understand that WINSXS is required to prevent the DLL-Hell, but is it really required to store all the DLLs from all those Patches that MS provides? I mean, we're talking of a freshly installed OS, that already doesn't know how to handle its own files.
Is MS doing somthing, so an admin can reduce the size of the MasterImage?

Hi Benjamin.G,
From Windows 8, we have considered this situation. Generally, a valid installation source would include all resource for installation.
"Features on Demand (FoD)" is a new concept in Windows 8 that allows administrators and image builders to reduce the amount of space used by the component store by adding only the payload for optional components they need to
a system image. "Payload" refers to the binaries and other files associated with a feature.
The major benefit of this feature is to conserve disk space. Once removed, these binaries will need to be added back from a valid installation source before the feature can be used again. Unlike the stage and un-stage process used by the component store,
Features on Demand removal results in a permanent removal of those binaries.
For example, I would do some customization on my Windows 10 Technical Preview.
I mount this image first:
DISM /mount-image /imagefile:c:\recoveryimage\install.wim /index:3 /mountdir:c:\image
Get the feature list to check which I want to preserve:
Dism /Image:C:\image /Get-Features
Choose one or some to remove:
DISM /image:c:\image /disable-feature /featurename:feautername /remove
Verify the state of the feature is removed:
DISM /image:c:\image /get-featureinfo /featurename:feautername
Commit the changes to the WIM:
DISM /unmounts-image /mountdir:c:\image /commit
Alex Zhao
TechNet Community Support

How to reduce the size of winsxs in windows 7 ultimate x64

Ok so first off there are some caveats to responding to this question
1.) Im on windows 7, so DONT refer to some "winsxs is important" vista link...
2.) i am well aware of what windows side by side is for, and appreciate dll ____ must be bad for some... but lets be honest, professional people like me know how to keep a system in shape and not remove DLL files willy nilly and should have some kind of
"i know what im doing" option
3.) i know its important system files blah blah blah
4.) i know it MUST be possible to trim this... vsp1cln.exe and compcln.exe from vista sp1 and sp2 respectively shows it CAN be done
so in light of that, as there is no vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe included on windows 7 i need to know if they are compatible with windows 7 if i just pull down a version from vista.
if not, there must be some kind of method to reduce winsxs size... mine is currently at 6.2GB and that... frankly... is too big, i can understand a few GB worth, but 6! thats a whole windows xp installation!
now, if a utility could be written that would be detrimental to compatibility but acceptable in terms of limited damage then that would be good, perhaps removing the ability to uninstall updates if for example, your system has been stable since february
i know i wont have problems and have the retail disk if it gets fubar.
I cant see what all that folder is for... i mean if you dont want such compatibility or the ability to install extra components without finding the disk then you should be able to remove that... i dont use a lot of the server side components, so why cant
i remove those.
also winsxs uses a lot of hardlinks and junctions that are reporting hard drive usage that isnt actually used as explorer counts these files repeatedly, there must be a way to tell explorer not to count those files... it might be all well and good to say
theres 2gb not actually being used, but if windows is throwing a fit because it thinks im out of space then those 2gb might as well be 2 TB for all the use they are to me.
lets take for example the winsxs/backup folder, there are about 60% of that taken up with FONT BACKUPS... i mean SERIOUSLY! ... you backed up the FONTS!?
WHY!?!?
There must be more things like those that could go
perhaps someone could get back in touch and explain why microsoft windows is the ONLY operating system that seems to think that if it doesnt have 80 hundred million backups and spares it wont work... linux does not have this side by side thing, nor does
macosx

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?
So fact is Microsoft understates or conveniently hides the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements are install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increasing is unacceptable, especially
for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

Reduce File Size in Acrobat Pro (9.5.5) Corrupts Graphics in PDF Documents - shows up as black image

Whenever I use Reduce File Size in Acrobat Pro (9.5.5), sometimes some of the images (not all) get corrupted and show up as a black image in the new document.
Actually, the new reduced document looks okay when viewed in Acrobat, but the problem shows up when viewed in the Preview application on the Mac.
I'm using Acrobat 9.5.5 with Mac OS 10.8.6
I've tried re-importing the graphic into a new graphic box, which didn't work. Thinking there may be some type of corruption with the actual graphic file, I then tried viewing the graphic, then taking a screenshot of it to create a completely new file, and then re-importing the new graphic file into the original document (created in Adobe In Design 5.0.4). I then export the new document as a pdf, and brought it into Acrobat Pro to do the Reduce File Size. Same thing happens - black box appears where the graphic was.
I then tried using the Reduce File Size within the Save As function of the Preview application on the Mac - while the graphic remains intact, many of the other graphics in the document are "reduced" too much, to the point where the image quality is seriously degraded, and therefore not usable.
Any other ideas?

Hi Anoop,
I can share the graphic file, but not the pdf which contains it (as it contains confidential information) - thanks!

PDF reduce file size filters and CMYK to RGB conversion

This doesn't seem to be on-topic to this forum, but I'm hoping someone here has the expertise to answer my question. We have some scripts which take a series of press-quality pdfs and use the "reduce file size" filter to prepare them for viewing on the web. We run these scripts on a 10.4 machine, and the filter works very well, reliably reducing file sizes of all sorts of pages.
When we tried to upgrade the machine, we discovered that the quartz filtering has changed in 10.5 and 10.6. While it's usually an improvement, getting maybe 5-10% better compression ratios, it has become unreliable in that about 5% of my files fail spectacularly -- they blow up to 3, 4, 5, 6 times the original size.
The other thing that happens is that the 10.5/10.6 filters munge the colors up. I found the solution to this -- in the ColorSynchUtility, make a duplicate of the Reduce File Size filter, and add a Color Management Component called Convert To Profile. This allows me to set a filter that converts the CMYK content to RGB. The problem is that there are about 40 choices of profiles, and it's not at all clear what I should use. Many of them have printer manufacturer's names in them, some say "Adobe", others have cryptic codes (probably referring to various RFCs and schemes). I've tried a couple of the ones that don't look like they are for printers, basically chosen at random. They all produce files of slightly different sizes for the reductions that go well, but on the files that blow up, some filters are better than others. (For example, I have a 5MB page which reduces to 1.4MB with the 10.4 filter, but blows up to 27MB with the "sRGB IE61966-2.1" profile, but only 12MB with the "Adobe RGB" profile.)
So I have 2 questions:
1) Is there any way to configure a 10.5/10.6 custom profile so that it behaves as reliably as the 10.4 "stock" PDF Reduce File Size works? It doesn't have to be the most wonderful compression algorithm out there, just so that it never or rarely has a file blow up in size.
2) For converting press documents to pdfs that are going to go on the web, what is a good "Convert to profile" to use of the 40-some choices on the pull-down menu?

Cathy,
You have posted your question in a forum dedicated to the Final Cut Studio application Color. It is a very specialized program to grade (adjust) the color in video/film images. We know nothing regarding PDFs.
Have you tried posting this on an Adobe support site?
Good luck,
x

Reduce file size Acrobat X

What happened to the Document > Reduce File Size command that used to be in Acrobat 9?
For that matter, I don't see the PDF Optimizer command either.
What are the methods used in Acrobat X to reduce file size?

At Acrobat X on line help -
The topic path is Home / Using Acrobat Pro / Editing PDFs / Optimizing.
In the sub topic "Save using PDF Optimizer" the "Open the PDF Optimizer" provides the discussion.
At the LiveDocs on line Help a PDF is available (link in upper right of web page).
While the PDF is not updated with the frequency of the LiveDoc Help content it can be useful to have.
Once downloaded, embed an index to facilitate search. This provides a handy "quick look up reference" file that is immediately available.
Be well...

Should I reduce picture size for iWeb?

The pictures from my camera typically range in size from about 2 to 5.5 MB. Is there some reason I should reduce the size of the pictures before publishing them?

Wyodor,
I assume, from your message, that you feel I'm being lazy. However, that's simply not true. I have no idea how to check these things. I have two web sites--one for my disabled grandson and one for my first grade class. I am a gramma and a first grade teacher. While I do pretty well with my mac, I often need technical help. That's why I am using this forum.
So, if you (or anyone else) is willing to spend a bit of time, here's what I need: I take pictures of the children in my class every day and post them on my classroom website. Their parents love these pictures and wish to download some of them to print. From what I can tell, all the pictures posted on my site are automatically compressed, regardless of the method I used to post them on the page? I did find an option for the pictures to be medium, large, or full size. That would allow good prints after downloading. However, I do not want to set up my web pages in a way that it takes a long time for them to load.
I spoke to someone at school today who thinks that every picture on the web page is greatly compressed, regardless of what size is selected. He is very knowledgeable. If that is the case, there would be no reason not to select the "large" or "full size" selection as it would not slow down the load time. I would appreciate it if someone can confirm this, or explain what will best meet my needs as described above.
Thanks!

How to reduce image size on account of disk space shortage?

I import images from my camera to iPhoto on my MacBook. I want to reduce their size on import because hard disk space on MacBook is limited.
Is there any smart way how to perform it? I have not found any presets on Import dialog to reduce size.

If the photos are important then get an external FW hard drive and move the library to it and operate from there. Delete the library from your MacBook.
Next create a new library on the MB and copy only the photos that you have an immediate need for from the external library with the paid version of iPhoto Library Manager. It will copy the metadata, keywords, faces, places, and edited versions between libraries. You will a lean, mean travelin' library for the MB.
You you add photos to the library on the MB while you're on the road you can copy them to the main library in the same manner with iPLM when you get back home.

Images reduce in size on export

When exporting images from Aperture to desktop or external hard drive, they reduce in size by more than half. I have preview preferences set to 'do not limit' but they still export smaller... Please advise how to remedy this dilemma.

Glad it's starting to sink in.
however, you still need to understand some basic stuff regarding digital (which is normal at first!).
Otherwise is it correct that whatever we do to a jpeg will change its size therefore if we need to edit for quality prints it would be best to use raw?
JPEG is a lossy format, which means it's already been compressed - some information has been discarded by your camera to make the file smaller. The more compressed a file is, the more info you lose. When you work inside Aperture all the adjustments you make (without going to plugins or an external editor) are instructions that are applied on the fly by the software, so you're not actually affecting pixels but the way you see them. Only when you export that file are those adjustments then applied. If you export as a JPEG, you're applying compression again so in essence you're getting a degraded file. This may not be apparent but it's there. If you should re-import that degraded file and re-export it again, eventually you'd get something pretty useless. That's why we have lossless formats: a TIFF or PSD will not contain compression, allowing you to manipulate the picture without losing data.
Compression is a pretty complex beast and while you can shrink a file down a lot, eventually you reach a limit where compression becomes useless. There's just so much data that can be taken out. That's why zipping a TIFF will make a much bigger difference with the original than zipping a JPEG.
Otherwise is it correct that whatever we do to a jpeg will change its size therefore if we need to edit for quality prints it would be best to use raw?
It's not and it is. It's NOT correct that you should use RAW for printing. You can't print from RAW. RAW is just sensor data that always needs to be converted in order to be used, whether in print or digital format. The big advantage is in editing because it allows much greater manipulation of the camera's data after the picture has been taken and without loss or degradation.
But it IS correct that manipulating a JPEG file will result in data loss if you repeatedly export and import as JPEG. When editing JPEG you should either stay in Aperture or export to TIFF or PSD before editing in another app. You can get spectacular prints from a JPEG file as long as you watch your workflow.
There's a lot more to be said about this subject and I'm not sure if I'm being as clear as I could be. But hopefully this is shedding some light for you on the subject...

V2V to reduce provisioned size of VM while powered-on: How? vCenter 5.5

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for