Why is jpeg file size different in CS 5 and Photoshop CC?

If I open a jpeg file in both CS5 and Photoshop CC, and then "save" the files, the file from CC is much smaller than the file from CS5.
The size and compression ratios are the same, but the file size is different.  (It is about 1/2 the size).

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.

Similar Messages

  • 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.

  • Why do JPEG files with LR Develop settings open in Photoshop Camera Raw?

    Why does an image that has been altered by Lightroom cause the RAW Converter to open when trying to view it in Photoshop. Perhaps this might help; if I import, enhance and convert a RAW image in Lightroom to a jepg image it will open in Photoshop without issue. However if I then alter the jpeg image in Lightroom, update the Metadata and try to view it in Photoshop it cause the Photoshop's RAW Converter to open. Is the alter image's information held in a side car file (xmp) that can'r be read by Photoshop? If so would I need to re-export, (convert), the image again in Lightroom to embedd the changes thus making sure it could be read by all the various programs that are available to view images. As is I send photographs to newspapers and print houses it is important for me to know if they would be receiving fully adjusted images or only the adjustments that were made prior to converting from RAW to jpeg. Just in case...I am new to Lightroom. Thanks in advance for any help.
    Message title was edited by: Brett N

    When you update the metadata for a JPEG, it is saved internally (there is no sidecar). Any JPEG with Camera Raw develop settings saved in its metadata will open in the Camera Raw plug-in in Photoshop. That is the only way for Photoshop to deal with the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw settings can be added by the Develop module of Lightroom or from the Camera Raw plug-in dialog in Photoshop or Bridge. To prevent the file from opening in Camera Raw in Photoshop, you have to remove the develop settings and other metadata that ties the file to Camera Raw.

  • Reducing JPEG image size - jaggies in InDesign CC and Photoshop CC

    I have a high-res jpeg, 600ppi, 11 inches by 6.603 inches. The image is 4.21 MB, so there's plenty of data.
    I need to make it smaller to go into an InDesign document for print. I've been noticing this issue for awhile with CC. Recently I downsized a JPEG of line art in Photoshop for a poster, and it looked just awful.
    When I reduce the size to 300ppi, and 4" wide, bicubic sharper, I'm noticing that diagonals especially look really jaggy. The smaller I go, the worse the jaggies are. This is counterintuitive, because I'm reducing the size of the image.
    I have the Display Performance set to high-quality, with Allow Object-Level Display settings checked.
    When I place the CMYK reduced-size JPEG onto the page, the diagonals look jaggy. I thought it was a monitor issue, and that is contributing to it, but when I print out the page on my printer, the diagonals are still kind of jaggy. I tried placing a TIFF, and oh, my, that was twice as bad. I tried placing a PDF. Ugh.
    I've tried reducing the image to the exact size in Photoshop so I don't have to scale it in ID, then placing the image, and still jaggies.
    I've tried taking that image and dragging it from Bridge into the ID File. Still jaggies.
    I did print the image out directly from Photoshop at the smaller size, and it looks perfect.
    What could be happening? Is there a way to fix it? I'm working on a bunch of print work with some really nice photos in them (for a couple of real estate clients), and I'm afraid when the collateral gets printed, it's going to look like crap.

    Recently I downsized a JPEG of line art in Photoshop for a poster, and it looked just awful.
    When I reduce the size to 300ppi, and 4" wide,
    If it's really line art (no gray values) then 300ppi isn't enough. Line art needs to be closer to the output resolution (800-1200 ppi), and shouldn't be saved as JPEG.

  • When I narrate my keynote presentation, why is the file size so huge?

    When I narrate my keynote presentation, why is the file size so huge?

    Here are the steps so you can see all the files that make up your Keynote…
    Go to the Finder and find your Keynote file and make sure that it has the .key extension on it. If it doesn't, click it and command i to view info and uncheck the box that says Hide Extension.
    Delete the .key and change to .zip and then click the use .zip in the dialog box that comes up
    Double click the new .zip file and it will change it to a folder
    Open the folder there are the files
    Close the folder and add .key to the end of the name and click Add in the dialog box (this will change it back to a Keynote file)
    You might be able to do this and convert the voice narration to a smaller format.

  • Can I resize photos and reduce JPEG file sizes by using Photpshop Elements?

    Can I resize photos and reduce JPEG file sizes by using Photpshop Elements?

    Go to Image>Resize>image size.
    For purpose of web posting, go to File>save for web.

  • Export to jpeg:  Show jpeg file size prior to export

    Photoshop save to jpeg dialog box shows the jpeg file size associated with each jpeg compression level (1 - 12).  Lightroom export dialog box does not show jpeg file size.  Showing the expected jpeg file size is useful when needing to limit file size while maximizing jpeg quality.  For example, some email applications limit attachment file size; some photo hosting sites (e.g., Zenfolio) limit file size to 12mb.  If I export a cr2 file at 100 quality, it may result in a file size of 14mb.  However, I cannot determine this until after I export.  Then I may try 90 quality and find that the resulting file size is only 8mb.  So, I try 95 quality, and get a 12.5mb file.  This iterative process is a waste of time.  I need to se the file size resulting from each jpeg quality setting in the export dialog box.

    I have tried trashing the plist file. The files look fine through the media manager when copied to the other profile. They look like they are suppose to. The small videos also look fine when played on that computer. Unfortunately our other mac pro computer doesn't have final cut so i can't open and play proress files and my laptop, due to the extreme resolution can't be played on my laptop with final cut studio installed. Tomorrow i'm going to install the proress decoder on the one mac pro to check the files and make sure the self contained is checked but i'm almost positive on that. Other than nuking the profile i don't know what else to do. This is really weird.

  • Why does PDF file size increase each time I "save" tagging tasks?

    Why does PDF file size increase each time I "save" tagging tasks?
    Given:
    1) I'm running Acrobat Pro 11.0.07 (this is most current version)
    2) My file size starts at 750mb and ends up 15mb when finished tagging.
    3) Only certain documents experience this increase, i.e., no visible pattern of document characteristics
    4) PDF's are not full of images...in fact, mostly <H1> <H2> <H3> <P> <Figure> alt text, ect.
    5) Occurs with text PDF's and/or fillable forms (again, does not happen to all documents...only some)
    6) File increase occurs incrementally as tagging tasks are performed; i.e., each new save increases file size a few megabytes.
    7) Occurs whether I "save" or "save as"
    8) Difficult to optimize these files without corruption
    9) I'm running Mac OS 10.9.4 (this is most current version)

    Thank you so much for responding! I've been experimenting with the SAVE AS vs. SAVE for the past few days...and you are correct. It's funny because I've been tagging files for 2 years and never noticed this. Probably b/c I use both methods depending on the tagging tasks...some are more complicated than others and should not be overwritten. In those cases I SAVE AS new file.
    I love this forum...thank you again!

  • File size comparisons, InDesign CS3, CS4 and CS5?

    Hi, all.
    It seems there was a trend for several major releases where each time Adobe released a new version of InDesign and InCopy, average file sizes grew by 20% or so from the old release to the new release, at least back in the older CS days. Has this trend continued, such that file sizes in CS4 are substantially larger than file sizes from CS3, and CS5 files are substantially larger than those from CS4?
    Adobe, of course, wants to keep writing functionality that will keep the user community coming back to buy in to upgrades. The added functionality sometimes comes at a cost beyond the price tag. If file sizes are larger in a newer version, then page saves over a network or to a database are likely to be slower, and user productivity takes a hit while users are waiting for files to be saved.
    Has anyone done any testing to build the "same" page in multiple versions of InDesign to understand what the effect is on the file sizes? I'm specifically interested in the file sizes between InDesign CS3, CS4 and CS5. To be meaningful, the test page would have to be at least moderately complex, with a couple of photos, multiple text elements and so forth. By "same," the page wouldn't take advantage of new functionality in newer versions but would be saved as a native page of the current version, though the file sizes may be bloated by the new functionality like it or not.
    If you've done any testing along these lines, I'd like to hear more about it.
    Thanks.
       Mark

    The overall structure of ID's files have been exactly the same for -- as far as I can see back -- CS. No change at all, in there.
    There have been significant additions to the 'global' spaces; stuff like InCopy user data, table styles, object styles, and cross references. Each of these add a major chunk of data to each file, whether you use it or not, plus a few bytes per object (again, whether you use them or not -- ID also needs to know where you did not use them, that's why). I think these might be the main source of 'global' file size increase (a single object style in one of my files, for example, eats up a healthy chunk of 11,482 bytes).
    For the rest, all new stuff like 'span columns' is a handful of bytes per paragraph style. Tracking changes may very well double the size of text runs -- but 1 character takes up 1 byte of storage (plus perhaps some overhead of indicating its 'tracking' status). Any single measurement unit always uses 8 bytes at least (for example, the left inset for a column span -- even if it's not used, or set to 0pt).
    I think we're talking about a couple of K's here (oh -- perhaps a max of a hundred or so), in a file format that has been designed around the concept of "disk pages", each 4K big, meaning that sometimes adding one single character to a text box increases the file size by 4 K.
    Your idea of comparing the size of a file created in CS3 against the same saved as CS4 and as CS5 is certainly feasible -- I might try it some time, just to confirm it's purely the extra 'new objects' data that accounts for the size increase and to confirm my guesstimates of the number of Ks involved.

  • Why do several files open when I launch Pages and Numbers

    Why do several files open when I launch Pages and Numbers

    2139Mike wrote:
    Why do several files open when I launch Pages and Numbers
    Mike,
    Any document left open when you Quit the application reopens when you restart the application. Rather like the jacket that I neglected to hang up when I came home last night. It's still lying on the chair by the door.
    Jerry

  • HT204053 why my iCloud email is different from my email and how do I change it?

    why my iCloud email is different from my email and how do I change it?

    iCloud email - the email service the icloud provides.
    "my email" - what do you mean by that?

  • Why are my images suddenly darker in camera raw and photoshop C4 than when I open them in bridge?

    Why are my images suddenly darker in camera raw and photoshop C4 than when I open them in bridge?

    "Catalog"?  Are you referencing Ps Elements perhaps?
    Wrong forum.  We do not do Elements here.
    Here's the link to the Elements forum:
    Photoshop Elements

  • Why are the file sizes of exported jpegs so small?

    I shoot raw, studio portraits mostly. I import to Lightroom 5 as DNG and then edit. Upon exporting as jpegs, the file sizes end up way too small, some of the cropped and/or black &amp; white conversions as small as 560 KB, even with slider to 100%. Un-cropped color photos are ending up from 1.5 to 3MB. What am I doing wrong?

    Jim,
    Thank you for your response. I think some of the difficulties in this thread are that there have been more than one person reporting issues, which may or may not be exactly the same or different from the initial one reported by the original poster. Then, anyone else commenting can easily intermix bits and pieces from any or all of the other posters interrelated issues. Also, I should have added to my last response in clarification what I meant about the overall dimensions. I was referring specifically to inches, not file size, not resolution.
    My very first post was a thank you to Rusty's post for his comment about how he had noticed his Resolution setting had been changed from ppi to ppcm. I didn't say anything about printing. In fact, I never even stated what my issue was. I was merely thanking him for sharing information. So, for anyone to tell me that I didn't know what my issue is, that I didn't understand was quite laughable to me. And then the other two posters were almost equally ridiculous, who said that since they didn't experience the same conditions as myself and another person, it couldn't be a programming error.
    Trust me, I understand explicitly about resolution, image size, dimensions, file size and how they are all interrelated. Resolution is essentially the density of pixels. (And I'm still used to dpi vs ppi, that's how long I've been working with the concept.) I often help other people understand in whichever mode is most comfortable for them to grasp the knowledge of how to know what size image they need/want to capture and print depending on the types of measurements shown on their equipment used and by whomever they might be working with for finish work.
    I have a set process, I have set image sizes, I have an action recorded in Photoshop to shrink my images to 24" x 36" and save them in the proper folder with the proper name and another to shrink them to 8" x 12" and place them in the proper folder with the proper name. I am meticulous, so when the first image imported into Photoshop and it was 18.898" x 28.346", un-cropped, I couldn't figure it out. The file size was still just as large, the resolution was still 72, I hadn't changed any settings in Lightroom or Photoshop, the ONLY thing I had done was install an update. It didn't make sense to me that with the pixel dimensions still being the normal size, all of the sudden the inch dimensions were smaller. And I did need to be able to have the capability for a larger print size if/when I do want to print.
    I hope that I'm being clear now. I really was just trying to post a thank you initially. I hadn't expected all of this excess.
    I apologize for the troll statement. It wasn't meant for you directly, it was more for the grouping of comments which in my opinion didn't seem to be useful for the discussion and were instead just baiting. I shouldn't have allowed my bad mood to permeate my own comment regardless. I am also sorry for any other statements I made which might have come across wrong. I was trying to be funny with my first comment about programmers, but it might not have come across that way. I hadn't expected the rude and unnecessary comment back which I received, and that's where the trollish comments came from. That's why I only responded to that person once, despite the string of poking posts.

  • Why do copied files show different file sizes than the original files?

    When I copy files (to another drive, folder, etc.) some show the same file size as the original, but others don't.
    I'm guessing this is not abnormal, but what causes it?
    Thanks.

    Hi dymar,
    Copying to another Drive is understandable, they may have a differentnumber of Blocks allocated per file, for insnce a one Byte file might take up 512 bytes, 1024 Bytes, etc, but a Get info should show the actual size of the file within that/those blocks.
    If copying to another Format, like MS-DOS, Forks may be lost also.
    There are ways to actually Compare the files...
    http://www.hutsby.net/2008/01/apple-mac-osx-compare-files-and-folders.html
    http://www.deltopia.com/compare-merge-sync/macosx/
    http://www.macworld.com/article/49584/2006/03/cmpfldr.html
    http://www.araxis.com/merge_mac/index.html
    Or the most expensive one & my favorite, but far more useful, Tri-Backup...
    http://www.tri-edre.com/english/tribackup.html

  • Why is image file size increasing when changed to CMYK?

    When converting the colour of a Jpeg to CMYK in Photoshop CS5 the file size is increasing.
    The original image is 352KB and after saving as CMYK it is 2.1MB
    Why is this happening and how can I stop it?
    I'm using a lot of images for a print project so need to keep file sizes small with resolution of 300dpi. The image dimensions are really small, only about 30mm high so they shouldn't be this large a file size
    I am using a clipping path but this doesn't seem to be effecting file size (I checked by saving it as RGB with a clipping path which stayed small, and by saving one without a clipping path in CMYK which was huge)
    Thanks

    Two things may be happening: 
    1)      you may be making the file pixel dimensions (width and height) larger due to the 300 dpi requirement.
    2)      CMYK files, with 4 colors per pixel, are expected to be larger than JPG files, which are 3 colors per pixel and the data is compressed in a way that throws away information.
    You will not get CMYK files anywhere near as small as JPG files, as you are finding.   If there are compression options available when you save the file, perhaps those can make the files smaller.
    What pixel dimensions is the original JPG and what pixel dimensions are the CYMK files?

Maybe you are looking for