Post Processing File Size: I realize I am asking for input about a VERY subjective topic but I suspect I will get enough various opinions (One of the strong suits of UHH) to make some...

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

I realize I am asking for input about a VERY subjective topic but I suspect I will get enough various opinions (One of the strong suits of UHH) to make some PP decisions.
I am fast approaching 80 years old and cannot justify following every GAS attack I have so the hardware I have is what I will be using until I turn in my spoons. I have a windows 8.1 laptop upgraded to 16 gig of memory and a 2TB SSD and an Intel 4600 graphics card. My monitors are not top of the line but quite adequate for me. My problem lies in the capacity to PP the large files that I shoot and PP. I often work with above 1 gig files. The problem is that my current system is very slow ( at my age slow can be a friend or a waste of precious time) on some of the transform functions of GIMP and Faststone.
Now to my question; Assuming I rarely print larger than 18x24 size prints am I just working with too large of files for what I get out of the back end? OK, I have asked for it so let her rip. No holds barred!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I personally like having the files that contain as much image data as possible,
especially if I want to crop the image at a later point in time (maybe a lot).

Laptops are usually inherently slower than desktops for operating speed.
I edit on both types of systems, but the files from my ten year old camera are not that large compared to the larger pixel count (file size) of the newer larger sensors.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

"large files" are not good or bad. The only interest, in my opinion, is that they allow for the original detail conservation. Once an image is reduced and saved w/o back-up, that's it. Nothing will reconstruct the missing pieces.

BebuLamar

Shootist wrote:

I realize I am asking for input about a VERY subje... (show quote)

18x24 is actually a very large size and I wouldn't resize an image even from a 45MP camera to make that.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

BebuLamar wrote:

18x24 is actually a very large size and I wouldn't resize an image even from a 45MP camera to make that.

...I save at 24x16 often, and print from those jpeg saves. Alot of the time these saves are crops and resized. <shrug> So, what's the big deal?

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Shootist wrote:

I realize I am asking for input about a VERY subje... (show quote)

If you aren't going to print the file, or don't think you are going to print the file especially a large print as you specified, simply do a few minor changes to your original, (I assume they are raw files) and then save as a jpg. Once saved as a jpg, the file size will be much smaller and will be much faster to do some of the more complicated editing if need be. Knowing that you have the original raw image is like keeping your negative, so if you decide later that you want to make a large print, then work up the raw file with the same edits you did on the jpg and print. This way you are not editing every large file. Just the ones you want a large print from.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's hard to say with the limited information provided so far. What camera are you shooting as that tells us the max pixel size of your files, along with rough estimates of your files depending on JPEG or RAW. Getting to 1 GB files seems unnecessary, unless you're converting to TIFF and / or retaining significant layers. And if you're doing that much layer work, should you reconsider your shooting technique and get more 'right in the camera'?

Your computer sounds fine. So, some more details about what you're doing is needed to better isolate the issue and identify effective corrective actions. The intended print size and / or the original pixel resolution of your images is unlikely to be the area having the most opportunity for corrective actions.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

CHG_CANON wrote:

It's hard to say with the limited information prov... (show quote)

I am using a Nikon D750 at 24mpx which produces a 28.7 meg NEF raw file. I use PhotoNinja to process the raw file which renders a TIFF file of about 139 meg which I export to Gimp which in turn renders it into a 435 meg TIFF file. Adding additional layers just jacks the size up from there. Once all of the image PP is done GIMP natively exports as a finished tiff file of about 160meg. All of this is at a pixel size of 6032x4032.
I am working on getting the best "right in the camera" image so there is definitely room for improvement there. My largest images occur when I am trying to match background/foreground exposures in night photography so blending two images seems to be best practice to get reasonable final images.
I hope this gives you enough information to see what is happening. My question is am I using too large an image to begin with.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Shootist wrote:

I am using a Nikon D750 at 24mpx which produces a ... (show quote)

Entry-level cameras since the Nikon D3300 and Rebel T6i have been using 24MP sensors. There's nothing unusual in 24MP, not in January 2021 when cameras can deliver 45MP to 60MP.

But, every time you 'expand' the image data to a 16-bit TIFF format, you've made a decision that impacts your workflow and disk storage needs. It sounds like your work depends in creating these TIFFs. Are TIFFs necessary for your work as compared to JPEG? I'd guess 'yes', but that's probably your only size option for creative work that depend on merging images files together.

User ID

chasgroh wrote:

...I save at 24x16 often, and print from those jpeg saves. Alot of the time these saves are crops and resized. <shrug> So, what's the big deal?

You don’t actually save at a print size in inches. You save at a file size in bytes. Print dimensions has nothing at all to do with file size. You can change the print dimensions for any file, from biz card to mural, and the file size will not shrink or expand in response to that.

Now you know the <shrug> “big deal”.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Longshadow wrote:

I personally like having the files that contain as much image data as possible,
especially if I want to crop the image at a later point in time (maybe a lot).

Laptops are usually inherently slower than desktops for operating speed.
I edit on both types of systems, but the files from my ten year old camera are not that large compared to the larger pixel count (file size) of the newer larger sensors.

Thanks, I agree that originals should be stored full size so as to keep all possible information. At times I want to spend as much time as necessary for getting a really good image. Other times less information is sufficient so smaller files might be advisable.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Rongnongno wrote:

"large files" are not good or bad. The only interest, in my opinion, is that they allow for the original detail conservation. Once an image is reduced and saved w/o back-up, that's it. Nothing will reconstruct the missing pieces.

Thank you for your input.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

CHG_CANON wrote:

Entry-level cameras since the Nikon D3300 and Rebe... (show quote)

Thanks for staying with me. I found that keeping pixelization and banding under control in jpeg was a real chore and sometimes an impossible task, especially in the dark areas of the sky. Perhaps I should go back and try jpegs for single image projects to see if my technique has improved to the point that I can get it under control. Unfortunately I think you are right about the need for TIFF for blended images. Next stop, just trying our various GIMP TIFF size scalings to see what limits are acceptable to me.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

jeep_daddy wrote:

If you aren't going to print the file, or don't th... (show quote)

I will take your suggestions under consideration. Perhaps I should have mentioned that half of my satisfaction is in producing a high quality image that will stand close scrutiny should I decide to make large prints. I am not a commercial photographer so I only do it for my own satisfaction. My impatience with watching the little wheel spin on the computer screen is my main pet peeve. Being retired perhaps I am being over cranky.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

If you’re running Windows 8 then your laptop's processor is several generations behind along with your graphics card. Think about upgrading. There’s lots of help on this forum already posted about PP machines. Those designed for gaming have all and more of what you need.