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

[aiur4]

Im using Mac Pro 2013 from my previous school since Im allows using their computers for 2 years so I didnt subscribed any Adobe plans at this point.

I always have projects to do but the biggest problem is that both Photoshop and Mac Pro can not handle huge PSB files. Believe or not, each PSB files take 15gb to 30gb per each. That's right. Canvas size is 44 by 60 inch at 300ppi. I actually printed 44x60 inch prints more than 50 times from my school. Here's the problem. I wanted to create a canvas at 44x60 inch at 300ppi. The first project is fine but the second one is not. it took more than 60gb if I tried to use 44x60 inch canvas instead of 13x19 600ppi. Also, adding layers is so slow that I have to wait at least 5 min to add each layer. Im not using RAW files but JPEG but still it takes a lot of space. Mac Pro 2013 shut downed by itself due to overheating for a lot of time and saving took more than 30min. Well, I have 40 PSB files so far.

I am eager to create large fine art but I have no idea what to do. Im a Mac user but all Mac computers are not suitable for those tasks and Mac Pro 2013 is too risky to use. I totally doubt to use iMac Pro already. Building a desktop just for Photoshop is too expansive and risky since I have no idea if it works or not. At least I know that I need a super fast CPU like Intel Core i7 8086K, at least 64gb of RAM, any GPU, SSD storage, a liquid cooler, and etc.

Until I find a solution, I may keep using Mac Pro 2013 from my school but it takes too, too, too much time to create one PSB file. Can you believe it takes 6 hours to create one PSB file? 30~60 layers too. I just wanna hear about technical solutions for my project in detail. Do I really have to build a custom desktop as I listed above?

[~ Gil]

To address your question as "why" we have the ability to use higher dpi setting in photoshop.

Having worked the commercial printing industry, prepress, imaging, platemaking I can tell you that historically for me, one of the biggest benefits of Photoshop's ability to work resolutions higher than 600 dpi is for both editing and imaging of line art and text copy as spot colors.

When producing high quality films & plates raster image processors will typically output upwards from 133 lpi (lines per inch) and dot resolutions of 1200 dpi (dot per inch). Imaging 300 dpi line art or rasterized text on these system will will get pixelated edges.

As a fan of high resolution art and photography I myself have learned to adjust my work according the intended output process.
Curious, have you found the use of smart objects to be of any benefit?

[davescm]

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

[Dynamic Office]

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/

[D Fosse]

Yes, 10 ppi can be fully adequate for a wall-sized banner.

This "300 ppi myth" is incredibly persistent. It might be worth looking at what it really is. Standard book print uses a line screen frequency of 150 lines per inch. That is the real, optical resolution. At a viewing distance of a little less than arm's length, that's a fair optical resolution that people with good eyesight will be comfortable with.

But then somebody said, yes, but you can actually make out individual pixels if you put one pixel to each line. Yes, obviously you can.

So they looked at what ppi was needed in the image to not make out individual pixels. And it turned out that this was exactly x2, in other words 300 ppi. That's the theoretical upper limit.

These lines are printed at angles to each other, so you gain a little resolution there. But still - you can go a lot lower than 300 before it has any impact on sharpness.

OK. So far so good. Now let's see what happens as you increase viewing distance. Let's say to double - two crooked arms. Now you can use half the previous resolution, and still end up with the same optical, perceived resolution. At double distance, 75 lines per inch optically equals 150 lines per inch.

You can see where this is going. Walk across the room, and 20-40 ppi may be excellent. Step out on the street, and 10-15 ppi will do the same thing.

This is basic geometry. What is at work here is not the physical resolution, but the angle of view in your total field of vision. Degrees of arc.

[aiur4]

No JPEG only. RAW would be several times bigger.

I dont have a mind to decrease PPI since I let people to look close to my works.

[Trevor.Dennis]

aiur4  wrote

No JPEG only. RAW would be several times bigger.

You do realize that RAW is not a normal Photoshop file type, but associated only with the output from the camera?  Once in Photoshop, file type only becomes relevant again, when you want to save the image, and that would typically be to a PSD or TIFF format at your chosen bit depth.

[Noel Carboni]

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

[joanH]

Since I switched to digital art, I make my creations on 5 inch X 7-inch art board and always set it at 500 dpi. My work has been enlarged to posters and stretched canvas any size I order. Printer sets the limits if I prepare my art thus. Smiling. JH

[freelanceretoucher]

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!

[aiur4]

Ok, Im packing all images and projects to my hard drive for tomorrow to use Mac Pro 2013. I will be back here around 1~2pm tomorrow.

[aiur4]

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.

[~ Gil]

Best of luck with all that.

Not being in the large fine print market I guess I can't really relate.

Though I can offer that last week I did two 37 x 90 trade show panels that (psd files at 100 dpi ) file sized approx 200 megs each. Big dollar client with a regular presence at shows, very happy with the work and they always come back.

I sure hope your niche market produces enough return to make all this effort worth while

[rob day]

Rethink the layer usage.

[rob day]

You might also look at the channel usage. The doc size in the Info panel shows the flattened print size on the left (8-bit would always be half the size of 16-bit for a flattened file), and the size including layers and channels on the right. So this file has 34 channels, which has a considerable affect on the right number:

[aiur4]

I can not rethink the layer usage because it is what it is. I can flatten layers but the problem is that I can not fix it later.

[rob day]

You've found the limitations of your hardware.