Skip to main content
B
Bill Junk
Inspiring
April 26, 2025
Answered

My Photoshop 26.6 and Beta are generating very large PSD files.

  • April 26, 2025
  • 2 replies
  • 1202 views

I normally run the Beta version of Photoshop.  The last few days I noticed that it was taking a long time to store files.  I eventually decided to take a look and after checking the size of the PSD files being saved I was shocked to find that many were more than 800 Mb and a few even over 1 Gb.  The files I was editing were NEFs and typically in the range of 50 Mb each.  I had been using Topaz AI to remove noise and sometimes sharpening the image.  This was done as a Smart Filter applied to a Smart Object version of the image on Layer 0.  I was also using a Camera Raw filter on the Smart Object.  Other layers were added above, but not more than around 10.  Based on my past experience I expected the file size to increase by 50% to 100%.  Once I noticed the huge files being generated I tried both the Beta and Production version with a simple edit of a NEF file.  No smart objects were created and I did not use Topaz or the Camera Raw filter.  I just added a couple adjustment layers and saved the files.  Both tests produced very large saved files in excess of 800 Mb.  I'm running on a Dell computer with Windows 11 Pro and all updates installed.

Here's some data from another test I ran with resulting file sizes:

   Nikon Raw (NEF) file:                                                                                                                            47.236 Mb

   File opened in PS 26.6.0 then immediately saved:                                                                           211.870 Mb

   Above file - edited by adding a Brightness/Contrast layer then saved:                                         398.972 Mb

   Above file - Layer 0 made into a Smart Object then saved:                                                            685.542 Mb

   Above file - Camera Raw Filter (brightness adjustment) added to Smart Object then saved:    870.542 Mb

   Above file - Topaz AI denoize filter added to Smart Object then saved:                                        843.032 Mb

 

Has anyone else notice a similar situation?  Is this NORMAL?  Is there some option that might have been changed that would have produced this result?

Correct answer D Fosse
quote

Just out of curiosity does Lightroom have the same propensity to gobble up storage space?


By @Bill Junk

 

Lightroom is a parametric editor, meaning that all edits are stored separately as text instructions. The instructions are stored in the Lightroom catalog. ACR stores it in a separate "sidecar" file, or the file header. Text instructions don't take up space.

 

The original file is never touched at all.

 

Every time an image is pulled up in the Lightroom Develop module, the full chain of adjustments are executed in the background. Make a change, and the whole chain runs again.

 

Photoshop is a pixel editor where everything is stored in the file itself, so it grows as you go.

 

When you say "efficient ways to store information", that's exactly what file compression is. But there is no free lunch - the price is that it takes a long time to save and open because there's a lot of math to do. Some compression algorithms are fast and efficient but degrade the file withe every save. Others are non-destructive, but slower and less effective. There's always a price. 

 

2 replies

Trevor.Dennis
Community Expert
Trevor.DennisCommunity Expert
Community Expert
April 27, 2025

I have Topaz Photo AI so can compare.

 

Canon R7 .CR3 file 20MB

Opened in ACR, into Photoshop as a Smart Object and save as PSD (Compression turned off) - 457MB

Photo Ai NR and sharpen - 772MB

 

Looks like Dag is right and your file sizes are normal.

Do you have PSD/SPB compression enabled?  They save noticably faster with it turned off.

 

D Fosse
Community Expert
D FosseCommunity Expert
Community Expert
April 26, 2025

This looks perfectly normal to me.

 

First of all, a raw file is a single channel at 14 bit depth. Just encoding it into a 3-channel RGB at 16 bits will roughly quadruple the size.

 

Smart objects have a lot of overhead, so do layers. A further 200% - 400% increase is normal, depending on the smart object and exact layer structure.

 

Finally, as for save times, PSD compression is extremely slow. It's not about writing to disk, it's about encoding and packaging for disk. If you look in Task Manager you'll see that the time is all spent in the CPU, not disk.

 

PSD/PSB compression typically increases save/open times by 5x-8x depending. I disable all compression for this reason.

 

The irony of the situation is that you only need compression for really big files, which is exactly where the save times become unbearably long. But image files are by nature big. I usually say that if you worry about file sizes, you're in the wrong business. It's a reality you have to deal with.

B
Bill JunkAuthor
Inspiring
April 27, 2025

Just out of curiosity what are you folks using for your primary and backup disks?  I have about 100K photos.  Some of you likely have a lot more.  

D Fosse
Community Expert
D FosseCommunity Expert
Community Expert
April 28, 2025

If you have time I'd appreciate hearing a little more aboutthe technical aspects of your disk system and backup software.   The drives I have at the moment are a little slow.  Until recently I had a Raid 1 configuration with external drives but there was something really strange that happened and I lost about 500 images from a working area in my photo collection.  I could not find the missing files on either of the Raid drives, in the Recycle Bin, or moved somewhere within the file system.  Ninety-nine percent of the files were still intact.  Fortunately I have enough redundancey in other places that will let me reasonablly put the missing stuff back together.  It's just going to take a couple weeks to get it done.

    Bill


I should say one thing concerning storage space, take it for what it's worth.  

 

As a photographer, I always have the original raw files to go back to. If I need to redo something, I usually prefer to go all the way back to the raw files, taking advantage of improvements in raw processing as a bonus.

 

So I decided to not keep layered master files except in a few cases. I have a rather high throughput and turnover rate, so I need to finish the job the same day or the next day, and move on. So most of my master files are flattened for long term storage, keeping only the masks as alpha channels.

 

I know flattening files will make some people's hairs stand on end in horror 😉 - you're just not supposed to do that. But in reality it has been a non-issue.

 

What I'm getting at is that this is a huge space saver, much more so than any compression. It's also safer, because flat files are simpler in structure and less likely to be corrupted.

 

Obviously this won't work if you build images from the ground up, like digital painting or illustration. But there are some advantages to being a photographer...

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices