[Ed_L]

I *think* most of us are running 512 megs of ram, and that makes me wonder about file sizes. What are typically the largest file sizes you encounter during the process of using Photoshop (or whatever)? My file sizes vary quite a bit, although I'm not always aware of my file size. I think around 30 megs is typical of the largest sizes I find. They are larger at times, and there have been times when my file sizes have run over 100 megs, but that's very rare.

Ed

[d_kendal]

I'm using 256 MBs ram, and the biggest files I've used (in The GIMP) were some high resolution scans that were around 80 MBs.

- David

[Jill]

I have 512 Megs and my last few projects have run in the 60-80 ish zone with no slow down. Good question.

[DJ Dubovsky]

I guess that depends on what number you look at on the status bar. There are usuallly 2 numbers and typically 19m/70m. Then there's the number you get when looking at it in Explore you might get 62,000kb. Eenie, meeine, minie, moe.
I basically scan at around 300ppi so what ever that translates into. You know me and that resolution stuff. I hit that mental brick wall when ever resolution is mentioned.
I'm only operating with 256. Too many expenses when we had to get this machine so I couldn't upgrade beyond that. Still on my list of things to get but so far I seem to do ok.
DJ

[jeaniesa]

I'm not sure I have a typical file size. It really depends on the size of my original. If I'm starting from a slide or negative, my scanner produces 27M files in 8 bit mode and 54M files in 16 bit mode (though I rarely use 16 bit mode). For an 8x10" print, anywhere from 10K-21K. Those are the starting sizes and increase quickly when I start adding layers and alpha masks. The last photo I worked on grew to 127M before I flattened everything. I realize that this isn't huge compared to the sizes the professional photographers work on, but I never cease to be amazed at how quickly file size increases.

Jeanie

[G. Couch]

The largest file I am working on right now is 253 MB .... and growing! The file takes a while to open but I don't run into too much problem working with it. (a bit slow at times ) It's destined to be an 18"x24" Giclee print so the file size can get pretty big as I add more layers.

ohh... 512 Ram

[Sanda]

I'm runing on 384 ram and am working on a file 360.9m at the moment but I'm starting to notice a slowing down but that's ok because I'm almost finished. This print will be about 12"x14".

[Royce]

Interesting thread. In my shop, my file sizes depend most on the size of my output. I typically print at 300PPI/720DPI and my files range from ~10mg to over 200mg for my large format prints.

My main graphics machine is a Pentium P4 with 512mg ram/Win 98. My partner keeps wanting to upgrade to Win 2000 (neither of us are gutsy enough to go for XP) because he claims his home computer (P3, 256, Win 2000) is much faster than our shop computer. I'm very hesitant to upgrade because some of our main programs are still only certified on Win 98! Incidently, I used to have 1GB of ram on the machine but I had to remove 512mg cause I was having all kinds of memory problems with it and subesequently found that configuration is not supported under Win 98.

I'm curious what platform folks use for large (>~80mg) files. Especially if you don't notice a significant slow down as I might as well go to lunch when trying to manipulate files that large.

Royce

[G. Couch]

I have a 1ghz Athlon with 512 ram running Windows ME (yuck!). Usually when I work with large files I make sure most of my background programs are closed and I give as much ram as possible to Photoshop (80 - 85%). I have partitioned my hard drive and use the empty partition as the scratch disk. I also upgraded the system's video from the 8mb on board, to a 32mb AGP card.

I'm pretty sure Win 98 will support more than 512mb of ram although your motherboard might not. There is a bug when you get to 1gb of ram that prevents the system from booting up, but I think Microsoft has a fairly simple fix for it.

[d_kendal]

now I have 512 MBs of RAM and I'm working with a 225 meg file. the only time I notice much slow down is when I'm savig the file. (I'm still using a 950Mhz Celeron)

- david

[clare]

I'm currently using a little over 1GB of ram ( swiped the extra from my partners computer when we upgraded that system .. hehe!)

Image sizes can vary from 25mb upto about 300-500mb. I tend to use loads of layers and then some. I've got into a bad habit of duplicating a layer so I don't lose where I've got to - changing the original layer and forgeting about the second one. There is little hope for me I know!

Win98 had bad problems with memory over 512Mb and on there web site if you incounter problems there No.1 solution is take out some ram!!! helpful, NOT.

[LQQKER]

I'm running XP, 2ghz, with 1024 mb of Ram, 22 inch monitor and currently not using a scratch disk. I dedicate about 85% to Photoshop. I've encountered "no" problems if you wonder why I don't have a scratch disk (the extra ram helps). My average file size is probably about 200mb and as high as 500. I have a tendency to keep more layers than necessary also, but I have had "no" problems due to this. I run Norton "file defrag" once a week religiously, and so far so good (imperative if you don't have a scratch disk). I'm one of those that are under the assumption if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Ram is "cheap" at the moment, and to me it seems logical to have as much as you can (seeing Photoshop is a memory hog), providing your operating system is capable of handling it. I guess my point is, RAM is much faster than accessing your hard drive.

[Stephen M]

Hi LQQKER, good point.

Scratch disks are important, but they are a band aid, after all.

You often need 3-5 or more times the RAM than the image you are working on, to avoid the scratch disks being used as virtual RAM. So having more physical RAM is better to avoid VM, but if VM is being used - a dedicated disk is considered better.

Stephen Marsh.