30gb PSB project... Need help I guess?

After testing, I would like to say something about it.

1. I was able to rescale images without artifacts. I exported both 13x19 300ppi and 44x60 300ppi but there is no difference at all. If I upscale from 75ppi or smaller image size, then I do see artifacts. And I DO get more details due to stacking tons of image.

2. No differences between 16 bit and 8 bit color.

3. However, I'm still getting between 10~30gb of PSB files even I use 8 bit and 150ppi due to massive amount of layers and canvas size.

We usually get similar big size PSBs at the studio with multi-image composite projects. Our work around this is to break the file into different smaller files eg: backgrounds, mid-grounds and foregrounds, after this we create a master file which will contain the smaller files as link layers. This is the only workflow I've come around that will keep you files workable when the machine is about to give up but still flexible to keep making adjustments without compromising and flatten versions of you file.

It's also worth mentioning if you're working at 16bit, make the file to 8bit depth as  Rob day have said, this won't show on print specially when you mentioned that your source images are from jpgs, these already have lost the depth.

Try this to see if it helps!

The formats of the images you use as input don't influence how big your saved .psb file will be.  The .psb file can be compressed, depending on your compression preference, but it's not lossy compression like .jpg and will be much larger.

Also, the way you've organized your document will also influence it's size.  For example, if you have complicated layer masks on a whole lot of layers, they take room in the file too.

Other things can also affect size...  For example you might have image data beyond the edges of your canvas.

You have some responsibility for optimizing your document, or as you have seen it can get out of hand.  A number of experts here who have practical experience have already given you some good advice.

Finally, if you really need monstrous images, and that's the way you want to work what's the problem getting a powerful computer with lots of resources (e.g. 64 or more GB of RAM and TB of free disk space)?  If you need it you need it.

-Noel

Are you using RAW images? or are you converting them? what are the image sizes that you're placing into the canvas?

I'd really take the advice of lowering your dpi, I've heard billboards use something like 10dpi due to how big and how far away people will be viewing them.

Since you're talking big scale, it's unlikely that someone will stand nose touching to the canvas and even if they did and they pointed out the pixels you can just say that it was never intended to be viewed at such an awkward distance/

A 44 x 60 inch print at 300 or 600ppi is overkill. Take a look at this article on resolution for large prints.

What print resolution works for what viewing distance?

The key points are:

1. Our eyes can only resolve a certain minimum angle from the eye.

2. For larger prints we stand further away to view them so that we can take in the whole image

3. The further way we stand from a print - the larger physical area of the print that minimum angle covers.

Printing more pixels in that area is a waste of time - our eyes simply can't resolve the additional detail.

If we use interpolation to add extra pixels we are not creating any extra detail at all. Just spreading the detail over more pixels.

What that boils down to is - the larger the print the less ppi are required.

Using the formula in the article a 60 x 44 inch print would be viewed at around 9 feet.

At that viewing distance the ppi should be around 63ppi.

To give another example a 13x9 inch 300 ppi print viewed from 24 inches (2 feet) will look exactly the same as a 65x45 inch 60ppi print viewed from 120 inches (10 feet)  and will have exactly the same pixel size 3900x2700px. No extra file size required.

I hope that helps

Dave

What sort of image is this?  Is it a photograph, for instance, or maybe a photomerge made of multiple shots?   Further to what Dag has said, I am wondering why you think you need those file sizes?  What research did you do?  The only examples I can think of that might need that sort of file size, are Gigapan that use hundreds of overlapping shots, and can be zoomed into to see fine detail, or Bert Monroy's similar illustrations like Times Square and Amsterdam Mist.

Times Square

Amsterdam Mist

You appear to be talking about biggish prints though, and are talking crazy numbers.

The real expert on high definition printing, is Jeff Schewe   Jeff does pop up on this forum now an again, but not so much recently.   You could treat yourself  to one of his books like this one.

The Digital Print: Preparing Images in Lightroom and Photoshop for Printing: Jeff Schewe: 9780321908452: Amazon.com: Boo…

1. You don't need 300ppi. There's nothing special about the 300 number - it's just a theoretical upper limit for standard 150lpi book and magazine print to be viewed at less than arm's length. At double pixel density no individual pixels are discernible, not even in theory.  But it can be just as sharp at lower resolution than that. The farther away, the lower the ppi required.

2. Image size is measured in pixels. 60 inches at 300ppi = 60 x 300 = 18 000 pixels. That's a big file, but not that big. Any half-decent desktop system should be able to work with that - unless you have a high number of layers. But still perfectly workable on a good system.

Just to put the pixel number in perspective. The latest generation of ultra high resolution cameras, like a Sony a7r or a Nikon D850, produce about 8000 pixels on the long side. If you want more than that, you're talking Phase One or Hasselblad medium format camera backs, at the price of a small car. Then you can push it up to 10 000 or 11 000. Billboards have been printed at half that.