Skip to main content
Participant
March 22, 2023
Question

How to Quarter size Photoshop Files

  • March 22, 2023
  • 4 replies
  • 630 views

I have been working with a printing company that is VERY difficult to deal with (not my choice, boss won't switch). I am working on super giant files that could cover a wall (think 72 in x 108 in and bigger). These files are turning out to be anywhere from 5-15 GB each since they are saved as PSBs, 300dpi, CMYK, 16bit. Even though the images are flattened they are just super giant.

Anyways, the company requested that files are sent quarter sized to make it easier for them to work on the file, after which they will send it to the printer at 400%. I must be missing a step somewhere because the only way I know how to reduce the size is to adjust the "Image Size" but if you keep the 300dpi resolution it makes the file SUPER tiny and it would be ridiculously grainy to blow it up again to the full size...but if you adjust the resolution with the image size (so making the resolution almost 1200 to scale with the image) the file size doesn't actually decrease.

I've asked the company for specific instructions and they are so condescending, won't explain and I am at my witts end because they complain if I send a full sized file because then they have to reduce it themselves.

This topic has been closed for replies.

4 replies

Legend
March 24, 2023

A one-off pano like this is likely to be printed on a commercial inkjet, possibly as tiles (a large image COULD be printed on a web press or even with gravure, but that's extremely unlikely) and so it should be optimized for the printer/RIP combination that the service bureau is using. I would aim for 8pbc, 150ppi output and see if that works for them. This alone will cut way down on the file sizes and RIP time.

Stephen Marsh
Community Expert
Community Expert
March 22, 2023

Another example of viewing distance is to view the following layered TIFF at 100% view in Photoshop. The left half is a 300ppi original, while the right half is a 75ppi original. I have "screened" this at 600ppi resolution to "roughly simulate" an inkjet print. The resolution difference is obviously very visible.

 

Now reduce magnification to 12.5% and compare the left to the right.

D Fosse
Community Expert
Community Expert
March 22, 2023

...which is already more than enough. 300 ppi is massive overkill for this.

 

It's one of the most persistent myths in all of digital imaging that everything for print has to be 300 ppi regardless of reproduction size. In reality, 300 ppi is a theoretical upper limit for book and magazine print to be seen from less than arm's length.

 

And it's not even an upper limit for sharpness, because that's determined by the halftone screen frequency (150 lines per inch in that case). 300 ppi is a limit for smoothness. It's the point where it's no longer possible to discern individual pixels in a 150 lpi screen, not even theoretically.

 

It can be eminently sharp at much lower ppi.

 

And then there's viewing distance:

Stephen Marsh
Community Expert
Community Expert
March 22, 2023

This is often discussed on the forum, the fallacy of 300ppi being required for all print output.

 

There are technical and practical limitations. They don't need 16 bpc for output, so they would be reducing this to 8 bpc. They can't print from PSB and other file formats have pixel limits and or file size limits. They could arguably work with RGB which would also reduce file size.

 

For the output method and size, they know that 300ppi at 1:1 is too high for them to work with so 1:4 scale results in an effective resolution of 75ppi at 1:1 scale and produces "acceptable" quality output vs. the production constraints.

 

There are trade-offs to be made, one could argue that depending on image content and viewing distance/conditions that a higher number of pixels than 75ppi may deliver a better image, but this has to be balanced against production constraints (file format limitations, file handling, processing/print time).