Comments on: Importing Camera Raw Files into InDesign

By: InDesignSecrets » Blog Archive » InDesignSecrets Podcast 081

InDesignSecrets » Blog Archive » InDesignSecrets Podcast 081 — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:13:01 +0000

[...] * New design for InDesignSecrets.com blog * Free script extravaganza: Swatch Switcher, Label Graphics, Swap Object Positions, IndexMatic (beta) to index on character styles, Select Objects from Keyboard, Selection to PDF * “Smallest File Size” PDF preset caution, and related issues with PDF presets * Obscure InDesign Feature of the Week: Orthogonal Line Links mentioned in the Podcast: Sweet deal from our sponsor! Recosoft’s PDF2ID plug-in discount, just for InDesignSecrets users (this is the last week for the discount!) Support your local scripter! Home pages for Dave Saunders, Steve Wareham, Marc Autret, Kris Coppetiers, Martinho da Gloria Anne-Marie’s post about PDF Presets [...]

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:49:29 +0000

I’m not 100% sure, but I’m suspecting that the increased file size of a smart object vs. a flattened version is partly caused by the fact that you have “Maximize Compatibility” turned on. That makes Photoshop save a flattened version of the entire image into the file in addition to all the individual layers so that applications that cannot deal with layered PSDs can read them. InDesign also takes advantage of that flattened image so that you don’t have to wait half an hour for a print-res 150-layer composite to import (unless you change layer visibility in InDesign of course, in which case InDesign has to re-render the image).

If there is only one background layer (showing up in italics in the layers panel), I suppose Photoshop only writes the flattened version into the file, whereas if you unlock and smart-objectify that layer, it’s a regular layered PSD and Photoshop writes the flattened version *and* the smart object layer into the file, even if they are identical.

That’s just the first explanation that comes to mind, I might be completely wrong here.

By: Klaus Nordby

Klaus Nordby — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:42:32 +0000

I have several panorama landscape PSD files which are around 1Gb — and they take more than a minute to save, even on a 2x RAID 0 drive (2.9GHz dual-core). Adding *any* SmartCrap layers/filters to such files would make them balloon insanely and become a total PITA to deal with, both in RAM and for open/save. The SmartCrap stuff is only workable without baaaaad time-penalties on “smallish” PSD files, i.e., less than 100 Mb.

I hope Adobe will seriously re-engineer all their SmartCrap stuff for CS4 — the first-time implementation, in CS3, is just too sluggish.

By: Alan G

Alan G — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:45:58 +0000

Valid points on disk and RAM, but as far as load times I haven’t seen them slow down noticeably until the file size gets over about 150 MB. I have one whopper (from a client) PSD that’s over 700 MB. That one does take a while to load in or save.

By: Roland

Roland — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:43:59 +0000

How about “Space is infinite, time is absolute, patience is limited”

By: Klaus Nordby

Klaus Nordby — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:40:14 +0000

Heh. Here’s a relativistic-sophistic afterthought to my above posting: “Space may be infinite, but time is absolute.”

By: Klaus Nordby

Klaus Nordby — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:37:33 +0000

Roland is right, the storage space is so cheap these days that for any professional this expense is a non-issue. But Roland’s point about opening them files from the drive is only part of the problem: once opened, these files suck up vastly more system RAM — and, due to all the bits and bytes, they’re *slower* for the CPU to process. (And while RAM is cheapish now, too, few motherboards can handle more than 8Gb.) So space isn’t the real problem with fatass files: time is.

By: Roland

Roland — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:57:16 +0000

David, the problem isn’t so much the hard drive space as it is speed to open files. Drive space is cheap, having to get a new computer just to open files faster isn’t.

By: David Blatner

David Blatner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:18:07 +0000

Roland and Klaus, you are absolutely correct that these files can be huge! No doubt about it: It’s a balance between increased flexibility vs. the need for a larger hard drive.

I have a 7.7 mb .NEF file (nikon raw file), which — when saved as a flattened PSD (no smart object) is 11.2 mb. When saved as a PSD with a smart object layer (as I describe in the post above), it’s 30 Mb! I’m not sure why there is so much overhead, even beyond the flattened psd + the camera raw file. Strange.

By: Klaus Nordby

Klaus Nordby — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:34:19 +0000

Roland poiints out the VERY annoying problem with both Smart Objects and Smart Filters (in PS CS3): using any of those “Smart” approaches auto-doubles your file size. That’s . . . less-than-smart?