Silly Question #296

[Alan9940]

Is there a way to display total document size as you work? I like to keep track of total file size, especially when working on files from my Canon 5D II. It doesn't take a whole lotta layers to reach upwards of 500 - 700MB! And, I won't even discuss scans from my 8x10 film. Those quickly hit a terabyte or more!

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Not exactly "as you work". You can use File...Browse to open the PL Browser (and set it to display the info you want to see, including the file size), but it won't give you the updated file size until you save the image.

But then, the same is true for Windows Explorer or any file browser so it might not be worth keeping the PL Browser open for just that....

Come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea to add this info to the Document Attributes panel. That panel has lots of room available. It could have three sets of size information (updated in real time):

• Saved size: width, height, size (in bytes)
• Working size: width, height, size (in bytes). (This is the size in memory of the edited image.)
• Active layer: width, height, size (in bytes)

Since that panel is non-modal, you could keep it open and scrunched down so it's out of the way and only showing the info you're interested in.

[bkh]

Is there a way to display total document size as you work? I like to keep track of total file size, especially when working on files from my Canon 5D II. It doesn't take a whole lotta layers to reach upwards of 500 - 700MB! And, I won't even discuss scans from my 8x10 film. Those quickly hit a terabyte or more!

There's a button to calculate the file size in the File -> Save As and File -> Export -> Export … dialogues. It takes a bit of time to compress the image layers, so PL doesn't do it in the background.

Btw., in the Layer Attribtues panel, you can see the size of an individual layer (this only shows the compressed size if you have saved your layer before, or if it originates from a compressed file). Sometimes useful if you want to know what causes the files to be so big.

File size depends very much on your workflow. Making copies of image layers and applying filters to them requires a lot of space, using virtual copies and/or adjustment layers a lot less. A single layer with a 20 MPx photo with a colour depth of 16 bits takes ≈ 120 MB, and lossless compression doesn't really help much. You can use JPEG compression for individual layers but only with 8 bits colour depth, of course.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Hoogo]

Is this about checking/saving RAM or space on the drive?
Compressed layers only help to reduce the file size, but they use additional RAM.

[Alan9940]

Thanks Ken and Burkhard for the suggestions...I pretty much knew about the options mentioned.

Basically, the way I use the file size indicator on the status bar in PS is to watch how large my image file is getting as I work. I try to keep as many layers as possible available in case I want to go back and adjust something. However, it gets to a point where I know my system is going to start having trouble--takes a lot of RAM to maintain history states, viewer re-draws, etc. When I see I'm about to hit that point, I flatten the file and keep working. I don't have this issue with every file worked on, of course, but my 8x10 film scans start out at about 400MB with no adjustments or anything applied...that's just opening the file!

So, to answer Hoogo's question...for me, it's more about watching RAM usage.

I'm aware that there are ways to save file space--like using virtual layers, for example--and I've played around with them, but so far the use of virtual layers has confused me more than helped. The Help file in PL is...well...not that helpful. What would be really helpful is if there was some sort of training available covering these more advanced techniques and methods in PL. When I started with PS in 2000, I remember it being quite a steep learning curve, but there was a ton of helpful information out there in cyberspace! I was a NAAP member for years which really helped get me started. Anyway, just thinking out loud...

Do any of you think it beneficial for me to put a "Request" in to allow status bar display options a la PS?

Kind regards,
Alan

[Alan9940]

Speaking of virtual copies...

Since it's only a reference back to its original layer, the number of tools available to work on the virtual copy layer are limited. I can certainly see how the use of virtual layers would be extremely useful in graphic design, but they seem of limited use when working on photo files. Am I missing something here? Generally, my workflow is to start with the background layer, apply adjustment layers as needed, stamp layer (merged copy) creating a master layer of all prior adjustments, then continue working with further adjustment layers and, perhaps, more stamped layers. The stamped layer gives me a pixel-based layer for doing things that can't be accomplished with an adjustment layer.

Speaking of things that can/can't be done with an adjustment layer... I just recently noticed that PL will allow me to sharpen via an adjustment layer? Sharpening is something that I would normally create a stamped layer for because PS doesn't have sharpening as an adjustment layer. Apply sharpening as an adjustment layer would save file space, correct?

Kind regards,
Alan

[Hoogo]

Sharpening is something that I would normally create a stamped layer for because PS doesn't have sharpening as an adjustment layer. Apply sharpening as an adjustment layer would save file space, correct?

Yes. Such a layer is usually a pixel based layer, 8 bit grayscale, no transparency, so it will use 1 Byte per pixel instead of 3 (RGB) to 8(16Bit RGBA) or even more.
The layer itself stores only the mask. If you don't need a mask at all, yo can also start with "layout > vector > fit layer" and add the sharpening work to it. Or you can use a normal mask of lower resolution to save more memory.

If you only want it to check if lack of RAM makes things slow: What about watching the task manager to see the RAM usage?

[photoken]

Since it's only a reference back to its original layer, the number of tools available to work on the virtual copy layer are limited. I can certainly see how the use of virtual layers would be extremely useful in graphic design, but they seem of limited use when working on photo files.

In general, that's pretty much the case. For "straight" photography, they'd be helpful if you want to isolate an object and apply different adjustments to the object and to its background.

For example, here's the Layer panel from my test image where I really dove into using virtual copies:

motorcycle 01 layers.png

The "motorcycle 01" layer is the original image. I used its Curves adjustment layer to target the motorcycle itself and increase the contrast to make the chrome shinier. I used its Histogram adjustment layer to target the background street scene to de-emphasize that part of the image.

All the other layers in this test are used when I want to create various graphic design effects, such as highlighting the motorcycle with a yellow glow when using the "Stars" background, or creating a black-on-white silhouette of the motorcycle against a white background for a logo design, etc.

The thing that appeals to me about having so many different effects available in this PLD file is that it simplifies my file organization on disk -- I only need two files, one is the original image (that is untouched) and the second file is the PLD file. No need for separate image files for silhouettes, outline drawings, etc. Using clipping layers, virtual copies and vector backgrounds allows me to keep the PLD file size to a minimum. In fact, now that I think about it, I could reduce the PLD file size even more if I used a placeholder layer for the original image....

[Alan9940]

If you only want it to check if lack of RAM makes things slow: What about watching the task manager to see the RAM usage?

Yep, I could certainly do that...but, then I'd have to leave PL! Whine...whine.

Kind regards,
Alan

[Alan9940]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the explanation of that rather complicated looking layer stack you posted earlier. When I saw it the first time, I had a basic idea of what you were doing, but now it's much more clear!

Yeah, for me it's generally straight photography that I'm working on. I might add some texture layers to something, but that's simply pixel-based layers that are easily manipulated for my purposes. For example, my son-in-law is really into all these old metal signs (Dino, Coca-Cola, etc.) I had several pictures of similar stuff that I took with my iPhone, so I worked up one of them with a couple of texture layers and had it printed on metal. Looks damn nice if I say so myself. Giving it to him for his birthday.

Anyway, with PL it's pretty much the same "fight" I've had with PS for 16 years...trying to force a graphics design program into submission to do what I need it to do. Actually, in so many ways PL is so much more photographer friendly than PS; which is why I'm trying to settle on it as my pixel editor of choice when needed.

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Anyway, with PL it's pretty much the same "fight" I've had with PS for 16 years...trying to force a graphics design program into submission to do what I need it to do. Actually, in so many ways PL is so much more photographer friendly than PS; which is why I'm trying to settle on it as my pixel editor of choice when needed.

Yeah, you've put your finger on the thing about image editors -- there's only so many image manipulations that can be done. Mature programs like PS and PL have just about reached the limit regarding "straight" photo work, IMO.

[photoken]

Just to follow up on my comments about the test image of the motorcycle, I've changed the PLD file to use placeholder layers (for the starry background and the motorcycle) instead of the actual images. The file sizes on disk are:

• Original JPG image of the motorcycle: 2.32Mb
• Original JPG image of the stars: 265Kb
• PLD file with all the stuff: 1.99Mb

Verrrry interesting....

[Alan9940]

Hi Ken,

Agree regarding the maturity of products such as PL and PS; and, if those programs don't do something exactly the way you'd like, then there's probably an action or plug-in that does what you need.

Interesting that the PL file is smaller than the original. What is a placeholder layer? Does that suck the image in when needed or do you need to somehow load it into that layer?

Kind regards,
Alan

[photoken]

Agree regarding the maturity of products such as PL and PS; and, if those programs don't do something exactly the way you'd like, then there's probably an action or plug-in that does what you need.

Yep. Of course, we're talking about relatively "straight" photography. When I think about it, once a program gets outstanding layers and masking, it only needs two more features: a Curves adjustment layer (working in various colour modes as in PL) and a HighPass adjustment layer to add a little bit of "Clarity"-type sharpening. Everything else is icing on the cake....

"Artists" and "Designers", however, want a lot of goofball effects, so the sky's the limit for those kinds of effects.

Interesting that the PL file is smaller than the original. What is a placeholder layer? Does that suck the image in when needed or do you need to somehow load it into that layer?

Sort of both. When you create a placeholder layer, you get the usual File Open dialog to select the image file used in the placeholder. As I understand it, PL imports a low-resolution image into the PLD file to "hold the place". When you're working in PL, it automatically brings in the current version of that image from the file system to display in the editing window. So, placeholders will definitely save space in the PLD file on disk, but probably do little to reduce the amount of RAM needed when editing.

[Alan9940]

Ken,

Thanks for the explanation regarding placeholder layers. Kinda cool, actually!

Funny story for ya this Sunday afternoon...

I just showed my wife a B&W image that I had worked up totally in PL using only PL tools and adjustments. She said, "That's has a really nice feel to it. I really like it. Is that from one of your recent negatives?" (Been doing quite a bit of analog photography lately) I was like, "No, that's from my phone!" Her response, "Why, then, are you wasting your time in the darkroom?"

Kind of gave me a bit of a warm fuzzy that she thought a photograph from my phone might meet my high standards! And, she has looked at a LOT of my work for 40 years. I think I'm really starting to settle in to PL and I'm becoming quite comfortable with it!

Kind regards,
Alan