-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Photoshop CS5 JPG export wrong size !!!
- Thread starter Morph1
- Start date
J Hill Designs
New Member
sounds like its getting resampled on import prolly not a PS problem
J Hill Designs
New Member
all I am saying is if you resize to correct dimensions in corel, flexi the dpi will be by reasoning alone back to the original dpi
Morph1
Print all
don'tyou find this as additional useless prone to mistake step that you gotta do everytime you import a JPG from PS ??????
Doing a vehicle wrap it is essential that my files are in size while importing to Flexi ..., if a got to take care over the sizes again in Flexi this makes my job/work inefficient..., it is a fault onthe part of Adobe CS 5 release...
Every JPG file imported from CS4 imports at perfect size /perfect dpi....
Makes no sense that CS4 wil work fine with corel and flexi and cs5 does not.....
Doing a vehicle wrap it is essential that my files are in size while importing to Flexi ..., if a got to take care over the sizes again in Flexi this makes my job/work inefficient..., it is a fault onthe part of Adobe CS 5 release...
Every JPG file imported from CS4 imports at perfect size /perfect dpi....
Makes no sense that CS4 wil work fine with corel and flexi and cs5 does not.....
Morph1
Print all
I am doing everything correctly, I've been working with PS since version 3,
the most current version is having issues... all I'm saying is that this creates additional field for error and creates a risk of printing wrong size images...
Why should I not print from jpg ? , in regards to tif format , Im sorry they are enormous in size I would have to have a 10 hard drive server to manage my work in tif format
the most current version is having issues... all I'm saying is that this creates additional field for error and creates a risk of printing wrong size images...
Why should I not print from jpg ? , in regards to tif format , Im sorry they are enormous in size I would have to have a 10 hard drive server to manage my work in tif format
J Hill Designs
New Member
well if you are doing it correctly then adobe is broken *rollseyes*
SightLine
║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█
Considering you can pick up 2TB drives on sale nowadays for as low as fifty bucks drive space seems a non-issue to me personally. I have preference to image quality - on a jpg anything less than maxmimum quality is getting compressed and loses some quality.
While we always export a flattened tiff (Adobe RGB profile) for production (and have done so for probably 7 years now) we do about once every month go and delete the previous months flattened tiff images - unless that was the only image we have.... we do retain original working psd files and other original files indefinitley. We are up to about 4TB in our main backup archive now. After about a year of unuse - files get removed from the main working storage and are only available on backups. Main working drives run about 500GB right now.
I see where different programs opening jpg images at different resolutions could cause problems. What other are saying is that is a non-issue with tiff images. There is good reason most all print shops and photographers prefer tiff images... it reduces quality loss from compression and reduces errors with file sizes.
We just got CS 5.5 Design Premium in yesterday.... I reckon I might run into the same issue once I upgrade our machines from CS4 but again - the only jpg images I get are from customers and cameras - as soon as we use a jpg the working file gets saves as a psd so should not be a problem here.
While we always export a flattened tiff (Adobe RGB profile) for production (and have done so for probably 7 years now) we do about once every month go and delete the previous months flattened tiff images - unless that was the only image we have.... we do retain original working psd files and other original files indefinitley. We are up to about 4TB in our main backup archive now. After about a year of unuse - files get removed from the main working storage and are only available on backups. Main working drives run about 500GB right now.
I see where different programs opening jpg images at different resolutions could cause problems. What other are saying is that is a non-issue with tiff images. There is good reason most all print shops and photographers prefer tiff images... it reduces quality loss from compression and reduces errors with file sizes.
We just got CS 5.5 Design Premium in yesterday.... I reckon I might run into the same issue once I upgrade our machines from CS4 but again - the only jpg images I get are from customers and cameras - as soon as we use a jpg the working file gets saves as a psd so should not be a problem here.
GAC05
Quit buggin' me
You are not doing anything wrong.
Adobe updated their jpeg output in CS5 to follow the current EXIF specs.
I think the current Corel and Flexi versions are a step behind and pull the size info from the JFIF header instead.
The pixel count is not changed, just the way it is interpreted is wrong.
As long as you know the correct output size it is not a big deal.
I've been getting jpegs with this issue from a single design firm for the last half year or so.
Corel and Flexi need to update....
wayne k
guam usa
Adobe updated their jpeg output in CS5 to follow the current EXIF specs.
I think the current Corel and Flexi versions are a step behind and pull the size info from the JFIF header instead.
The pixel count is not changed, just the way it is interpreted is wrong.
As long as you know the correct output size it is not a big deal.
I've been getting jpegs with this issue from a single design firm for the last half year or so.
Corel and Flexi need to update....
wayne k
guam usa
Morph1
Print all
Thanks GAC05 for the knowledgable reply...,
Yesterday I did a bit of a reseach googling around and I came across a topic explaining the new interpreter that adobe implemented and got rid of the standard one, this is what is causing the information pass as size/res. in JPG images into other applications...,
I guess other firms have to conform to new Adobe standard.
In the mean time I will be resizing my images accordingly and keep a close eye onto the image sizes....
Regarding the tif files, lol I mean thats great if you're printing anything for the indoor let me guess size 2'x3' viewable from a foot distance ,yeah you wanna keep your crisp edges and acceptable file size..., my business deals mainly with large trucks, trailers and vehicle wraps..., nobody cares about the JPG compression and a bit blur in the process,
I get some files done as JPGs at 50 DPI and they look great... and guess what I can manage a 48 ft trailer in 25 MB space...., where the same trailer in TIF format would take 4 GIGs maybe more.... now backing up this data would also be crazy... I can only imagine the rip time....
Some folks are just stuck on old concepts, the last time I've seen a tif file in my business was about 5 years ago , the files we accept from clients in a 1000s there maybe 1 tif file from a guy that had no clue.
I mean you want to manage your files this way Go right at it, you wanna simplify your process do it my way.... as long as you get the job done easy or the hard way, get paid and be happy
cheers !
Yesterday I did a bit of a reseach googling around and I came across a topic explaining the new interpreter that adobe implemented and got rid of the standard one, this is what is causing the information pass as size/res. in JPG images into other applications...,
I guess other firms have to conform to new Adobe standard.
In the mean time I will be resizing my images accordingly and keep a close eye onto the image sizes....
Regarding the tif files, lol I mean thats great if you're printing anything for the indoor let me guess size 2'x3' viewable from a foot distance ,yeah you wanna keep your crisp edges and acceptable file size..., my business deals mainly with large trucks, trailers and vehicle wraps..., nobody cares about the JPG compression and a bit blur in the process,
I get some files done as JPGs at 50 DPI and they look great... and guess what I can manage a 48 ft trailer in 25 MB space...., where the same trailer in TIF format would take 4 GIGs maybe more.... now backing up this data would also be crazy... I can only imagine the rip time....
Some folks are just stuck on old concepts, the last time I've seen a tif file in my business was about 5 years ago , the files we accept from clients in a 1000s there maybe 1 tif file from a guy that had no clue.
I mean you want to manage your files this way Go right at it, you wanna simplify your process do it my way.... as long as you get the job done easy or the hard way, get paid and be happy
cheers !
RIP time is actually faster for a .tif as it's uncompressed pixel data. Backup is a non-issue as you can compress the files on the NAS using drive compression. ~6 years of files for us takes up around 750GB which isn't much. A 4TB raid redundant NAS costs peanuts.
When you're working with a raster output, use TIF. If you want to be all TIF IS STUPID at least use PNG, not JPG. There are essentially zero scenarios in which JPG is a good export format for print.
At the end of the day the quality of the product you put out is the most important thing.
When you're working with a raster output, use TIF. If you want to be all TIF IS STUPID at least use PNG, not JPG. There are essentially zero scenarios in which JPG is a good export format for print.
At the end of the day the quality of the product you put out is the most important thing.
TIFF files shouldn't be nearly that huge, not unless you're going overkill on image resolution in relation to the display's size and viewing distance.
I have a lot of layered Photoshop .PSD and .PSB files for billboard faces and vehicle wraps. Not many break the 1GB barrier. Flattened TIFFs are significantly smaller.
JPEG is a terrible format to use for any job that is in progress or any sort of state of change. JPEG uses data lossy compression. Any time a JPEG-based image is changed and re-saved in JPEG the image is degraded even further.
TIFF is either uncompressed or data lossless (LZW compression). You can save TIFFs in a greater variety of color depths and models or even include layers if you're using a newer version of Photoshop.
Given the capacity and relative low cost of external hard discs, I see very little need for using JPEG other than image display on web pages. Even PNG is starting to finally make serious inroads there. Hard discs will continue to grow far larger as the general public's need for HD quality video storage will grow.
Morph1
Print all
I must agree with you on the compression , but seriously why would you want to print a truck wrap from TIF file, I mean if you stand 40 feet away you would not see a difference weather the job was printed from JPG or the TIF file. I wanted to add that I do store my primary files as PSD or PSB those are the archived files that I will work from on the next projects., but for my production I will have a well preped JPG file depending on the application, a truck wrap I can go as low as 55 dpi and they look great, a vehicle wrap would be between 85 and 120, where an indoor print would be between 150 and 300 depending on the size of details.... , I manage my files well , and in the end I receive great results printing of JPG's, the key thing is the source of your image when you start your design, secondary key is to understand the how your image will be viewed...
I ran some tests and I came up with 49 MB JPG file at 85 dpi size 10 ft x 30 ft the image was built from old photographs and it does not matter how you construct your tif file or JPG file it will only get as good as the photo is,
you can resample all you want at this size this image will look like {rap...,
the JPG with minimal compression took 49 MB the raw tif file with no compresion took whoping 547 MB, the tif with LZW compression took 155 MB concidering this is a sepia image so instancing pixels in LZW would be quite efficient.. ,
Still for whatever quality I would never choose to print of TIF files vs JPG's. unless you print for an ART GALERY or a Professional Photographer....
thanks guys for all the input,
very informative....
I ran some tests and I came up with 49 MB JPG file at 85 dpi size 10 ft x 30 ft the image was built from old photographs and it does not matter how you construct your tif file or JPG file it will only get as good as the photo is,
you can resample all you want at this size this image will look like {rap...,
the JPG with minimal compression took 49 MB the raw tif file with no compresion took whoping 547 MB, the tif with LZW compression took 155 MB concidering this is a sepia image so instancing pixels in LZW would be quite efficient.. ,
Still for whatever quality I would never choose to print of TIF files vs JPG's. unless you print for an ART GALERY or a Professional Photographer....
thanks guys for all the input,
very informative....
SightLine
║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█
Nothing wrong with that either tooth..... Flexi "generally" handles native Photoshop files just fine. Once in a while it might freak out on a layer with something funky going on though.
Morph - I do see you point and respect that. Not slamming you for using jpg. My earlier post was just stating that most I've ever talked with that have been doing this for a long time ultimatley settled on tiff as the preferred file format for final output and stuck with that. I think it's probably part due to consistency and part due to a long running attitude in the design industry that jpeg compression is just terrible. While I realize that in PS you can adjust the amount of compression on a jpeg to near negligible levels the average user is probably using something that gives no control over that or just accepts the default rather high compression value.
Morph - I do see you point and respect that. Not slamming you for using jpg. My earlier post was just stating that most I've ever talked with that have been doing this for a long time ultimatley settled on tiff as the preferred file format for final output and stuck with that. I think it's probably part due to consistency and part due to a long running attitude in the design industry that jpeg compression is just terrible. While I realize that in PS you can adjust the amount of compression on a jpeg to near negligible levels the average user is probably using something that gives no control over that or just accepts the default rather high compression value.
My point is that there's absolutely no benefit. HD space is close enough to free now not to matter and there's no RIP speed advantage, while there ARE advantages to TIF (supports transparency, clipping paths, layers, doesn't lossy recompress on save, etc.).
In any case do what works for you.
In any case do what works for you.
