[the_insider]

i dont get it...im wanting to do something for the expose
and this would be my first time doing something of a high resolution
and high pixelation...yet it's too big of a file to post, put on webspace
or what ever....im wondering how do people like
CAPT flushgarden and spooge work on at least 3000 X 3000
pixels roughly and still post it small enough yet clean enough
to see without it being a big ass download
----the image i already started for EXPOSE is 2000X 2500 w/ a res.
of 300....so what do i do with it now??
_________________
www.andresguzman.com
---Would you believe me if i told you i was a liar?...

[eyalyab]

for showing on the forum, why dont you just save a copy of it, and resample the copy to 72dpi and downsize the image size to 50% or 25% the px resolution.
you'll still have the original to work on, but just for showing on the forum, downsize it.

[the_insider]

aright--that sounds understandable...but what about when it needs to be of
really good resolution for expose?...what kind of saving would i do or
what kind of modifications if any?...
--oh-one more thing...i never knew how people focused in on one area for
details....do you just zoom in and save it? or what?
_________________
www.andresguzman.com
---Would you believe me if i told you i was a liar?...

[Sumaleth]

insider:

I'm not totally sure what you're confused about here. You can work at a huge size and then just save a scaled down version to display on forums or a website (eg. my mech is painted at around 4900x2400 but the versions I've been showing here are scaled to 20% or 24% in size. (I find it a good idea to run a -light- sharpen filter over the scaled-down images too, otherwise they tend to be a little soft)

The Expose website tells you exactly how they want the images sent to them - they want the images saved in UNCOMPRESSED TIF format. Just fill in an entry form and they'll email you the form plus instructions on what to do next.

For a highres image, and uncompressed tif weighs in at around ~30meg, but I think the email will tell you that you can put it into a zip file, and that'll get the image down to 2-4meg depending on the complexity of the image. You'll then have to upload the .zip file to their website using FTP. (I haven't submitted an entry form yet so I'm just assuming, based on whats on their site)

Working at BIG resolutions does take a lot of resources. For example, the mech PSD file is 160meg, and the whole work directory for that project is 5gig. Once the project is finished I'll delete all the work-in-progress stuff and just keep a single PSD though.

To work on a highres image you generally want to have two windows open for the one project: a zoomed-in window where you do the work, and a scaled-back window where you can see the overall results in the context of the image. This is why people often talk about dual-monitor setups - you can use Photoshop so that one monitor is used for zoom/work, and the other monitor is entirely devoted to a view of the whole image.
_________________
Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials

[cheney]

Its exactly as Sumaleth said. I only wish to add that saving from a raw format (such as PSD) to a compressed format (such as JPG) takes a bit of memory. So, if your image exceeds your memory then it cannot be compressed at its original size.

Its very quick and simple to save a PSD to uncompressed TIF because there is no real compression. But my last image would not directly convert to JPG, because it was too large in pixel size for my mere 2gb of memory to hold. So, I had to first save it as TIF, then open that TIF, reduce in size for the web, then save as JPG.

If memory is not an issue for you then just disregard my babeling.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[eyalyab]

you have only 2gb of ram?? how can you work like that?
crazy people.. =]
i have less than 256.

one more thing you asked and didnt get an answer-
to save detailed bits and parts of the original image, just select these parts with the rectangle select tool and crop the image. image > crop (i think. maybe edit > crop)

[the_insider]

aright aright...i had photoshop open while reading this to
do the things you guys said ...i pretty much understand now
how to do all of this...so this is a test...i cropped a part of my
image...(that was for expose) and made two,,,small and larger.
one more thing...whats compressed and UNcompressed>>??
sorry for my constant amateur questions---just wondering




edit:YAAAAYYY it worked! but so so sorry for the bigness....
if you want me to take it off suma thats kool.
_________________
www.andresguzman.com
---Would you believe me if i told you i was a liar?...

[B0b]

yeah 2GB of RAM is on the small size these days - my next workstation is going to have 4

[cheney]

4gb of ram would be nice, but currently in Win32 and Win64 process trees applications are allowed a maximum of 2gb of memory access. This can be upped to 3gb with a Windows hack.

That is why i suggest using a ramdisk configuration on large memory sectors, so that additional memory can be used as Photoshop scratch disk rather than wasted above 2gb as actual system memory.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[Tom Luth]

>>>one more thing...whats compressed and UNcompressed>>?? <<<

Okay, uncompressed is the full file size, as you would see when you first create a document, or in the info area at the bottom of the file in Photoshop. For example, a 1000 x 1000 pixel RGB image is 2.87MB. Compression is any format that reduces the size of that file. Now it gets tricky. The simple answer is, the more you compress the image, the more it reduces the quality. Not entirely true, but close enough.

Lossless compression is a technique that compresses in a manner that does not harm the image. By noting pixels of the same color, pictures can be compressed substantially. For example, if I took this 1000 x 1000 pixel image, and filled it with solid red, using lossless compression, like Photoshop, or TIFF RLE compressed, the file will be very small. The reason is that it will look at the first pixel and record it's color info, and then look to see how many pixels look the same. In this case, it will say that 10,0000 pixels have the same value, making it a very small file. In most pictures, obviously, it will note that a particular color runs for eight pixels, then the next color for two pixels, etc., requiring more space. Therefore, the information in the picture will determine how small the file will be. The solid red file will reduce to very small, like 30k, or so. A picture from a digital camera, however, which tend to be noisy, will change nearly every pixel, and be almost as large as the uncompressed file.

Most of the time, lossy compression is used. This means that one decides how much one is willing to lose in a picture to display. For print, most people want very little, or no compression to insure the best results. For the web, some deterioration is acceptable. JPEG is probably the most commonly used format for this. At best settings (10 to 12 quality from Photoshop's Save as JPEG dialog) it is near impossible to see a degradation of an image at 1:1 (not enlarged). This will reduce that 2.87MB file greatly. Dependent on the info in the image, this can be from half size, to much smaller. For the web, most people go smaller, like compressing at 7 or 8 in Photoshop. At that compression, one begins to see the degradation, but usually not bad enough to be a serious concern. By the time you JPEG down to 3 or 4 quality, you will have an image with lots of artifacts (glitches that look bad) that mess up the image. Even this is okay, if all you want to do is transmit some info, without a lot of detail, etc.

Also, reducing a copy serves much the same purpose. No one has a monitor with 300 or 600 dpi, so such large images (2000 x 3000 for example) are worthless on line. Not only would that be massive in download time, you would also have an image that is an extreme detail, forcing people to scroll all over the page to see small sections of the picture at once. Rarely is it necessary to post an image larger than 800 x 1000 on line. Sure you lose the fine detail, but usually enough comes thru. Small closeups can be added to show extreme details, such as the rendering of eye lashes, or whatever.
_________________
www.thomasluth.com