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

[Bill Junk]

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?

[D Fosse · Accepted solution]

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.

[Bill Junk]

I suppose you have better knowledge of what to expect than I have.  However, It seems like their ought to be a more efficient way to store the information contained in a PSD image file.  The larger the files get the more disk space I have to purchase.  That makes keeping things backed up a pretty big headache.  Just out of curiosity does Lightroom have the same propensity to gobble up storage space?

[D Fosse · Accepted solution]

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. 

[Bill Junk]

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]

At work I use two 20TB drives for document storage and backup (in addition to NVMe's for OS/applications/scratch). The big advantage of a desktop tower is that you can easily and quickly replace drives as you're running low on space.

At home I have another machine identically set up and kept up to date, so I can work from home without missing a beat. That's a rather elaborate arrangement involving external drives and synchronizing software, which I won't bore you with - but the net result is that I always have multiple copies of every file. It has served me well for 15 years and I have never lost a file (even though I had one disk crash about two years ago).

Although it should be said that I'm now at a point where copying a drive over to a new drive takes about a full workday 😉 And high capacity server-class drives are pretty expensive.

[Bill Junk]

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

[D Fosse]

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...

[Bill Junk]

I must appologize for the delayed response.  I appreciate hearing your perspective.  I do things a bit differently and I suppose that isn't unusual.  I do keep my layered psd files, especially for images that have taken a long time to perfect.  At the moment I am dealing with reconstructing a significant number of psd files that were lost (as described in my original post).  It's a slow process but I am making progress day by day.  I probably don't make psd files for more than 5 % of the images I take, if even that.  For most images it has been sufficient to just use Adobe Camera Raw on the .nef files with the edits stored in the sidecar file.  During the last couple of weeks while I've been reconstructing the lost psd files I did find that the newer features of Photoshop have made it much easier to recreate some of the files.  So I concur that there are situations where it is advantageous to using the enhanced and new features of Photoshop.  My processing tends to go in bursts and usually there is no time deadline that I'm working against.

I do have another question and that is in regard to the storage system that you use, specifically the hardware you've chosen and the catalog and backup software you use.

    Thanks again,

         Bill

[Trevor.Dennis · Accepted solution]

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.