Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Use Tiff?  (Read 48775 times)
once2work
Guest
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2007, 07:52:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I use Bibble Pro, shoot RAW with Canon 40D.

For Bibble it have a choice of Tiff 8-bit or 16-bit, which one should I chose and what's the different.

Thank you for your advise.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8772



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2007, 07:54:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For Bibble it have a choice of Tiff 8-bit or 16-bit, which one should I chose and what's the different.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://staging.digitalphotopro.com/tech/the-bit-depth-decision.html]http://staging.digitalphotopro.com/tech/th...h-decision.html[/url]
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2009, 12:48:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, I get the argument (brisk discussion) for using layered tiff instead of PSD formats to save my PS files.

One question though. You are presented the option of uncompressed or compressed files when you save a tiff in PS. Which option is best that provides the smallest files size AND no degrading of the quality?

Thanks.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Snook
Guest
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2009, 07:14:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: budjames
Okay, I get the argument (brisk discussion) for using layered tiff instead of PSD formats to save my PS files.

One question though. You are presented the option of uncompressed or compressed files when you save a tiff in PS. Which option is best that provides the smallest files size AND no degrading of the quality?

Thanks.

Bud James

I always used to use Un compressed TFF but after many researches, supposedly LZ is Lossless compression. I currently use LZ as it lowers the file size quite a bit and I have never seen any difference.
Snook
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 660


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2009, 05:30:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.

TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.

TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.

TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?

PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.

Getting back to the fist point, Adobe can do anything including stopping support for PSD because it's a proprietary  file format. TIFF is public, even if it's owned by Adobe (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.

And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.

Look, I'll make it REAL simple...

TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad


Ok?


Thanks for that, Jeff!  This is something I get asked all the time...  never had any real understanding of the differences.
Logged

Ted Dillard
jljonathan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2009, 12:45:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.

TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.

TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.

TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?

PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.

Getting back to the fist point, Adobe can do anything including stopping support for PSD because it's a proprietary  file format. TIFF is public, even if it's owned by Adobe (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.

And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.

Look, I'll make it REAL simple...

TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad


Ok?

So, if saving as tiff, what option is recommended: LZW or ZIP compression?
Jonathan
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2009, 04:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peterhandley
Well, I hate to disagree with most everyone here, but there's more than one really good reason to use the PSD format.

If you're doing layout work with an application like Adobe InDesign... the application will see TRANSPARENCY that you have included in the PSD file... but not in a TIF file.

For example... if you've close cut an image on a plain background and want a graduated shadow that will fade out over a background colour or another image in your layout... you can do that with a PSD file, but not with a TIF. You would need to compose the entire page in Photoshop if you wanted to use TIF files. Not so with InDesign and the PSD format.

You are also able to turn layers in a PSD file on and off from within InDesign, allowing you to use one file that may have many variations, in the same layout. A very useful function and a major time saver.

Now if those Adobe engineers were able to add this functionality to TIF format, then sure, I'd stick with just one, but for now, PSD is a regular and important part of my image and design work.. if it wasn't the same for others, I think Adobe would have dropped it a long time ago. The flow of file types between the various applications is one of the strongest features of the Adobe Creative Suite. The time saving that it creates is amazing.

It all depends on what you're doing with your imagery... that's how you can decide to use PSD or layered TIFS... they each have their advantages. If you're in a closed loop where you're not doing anything with your images but printing from Photoshop or some other imaging app, then there's no need for PSD... use TIFs all you want and you'll be perfectly content.

There's no right or wrong.

It may make sense if your using a number of Adobe applications for processing, but for many of us it's more a case of backing up in the best format for long term safety, for this I would TIFF (and keep the originals) As Jeff says Adobe could pull the plug any time, then in a few years it could be hard going to find anything to open the PSD's.  Wayne
Logged
jljonathan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2009, 12:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
It may make sense if your using a number of Adobe applications for processing, but for many of us it's more a case of backing up in the best format for long term safety, for this I would TIFF (and keep the originals) As Jeff says Adobe could pull the plug any time, then in a few years it could be hard going to find anything to open the PSD's.  Wayne
In the 'save as' dialogue for tif, which image compression is recommended: LZW or ZIP and for layer compression: ZIP or RLE?
Thanks
Jonathan
Logged
genedel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2009, 01:48:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,
Based on your latest comments regarding TIFF vs PSD would it make sense to convert all my PSD files to TIFF?

Gene vrs
Logged
Raw shooter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2009, 03:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the OP was asking about TIFF vs. JPG.  Not sure how PSD got involved here.
Although others on here can give you a more complete answer,  in short, converting to TIFF from a captured and corrected RAW file (edit instructions saved in sidecar XMP file) will result in the most complete picture file.
On the other hand, converting to JPG, from the same RAW file will result in a picture file that is in a reduced quality state.  Even the first JPG conversion is a lossy process where picture quality is permanently loss.
 
So to print an image, a TIFF conversion is of higher quality than a JPG conversion (from the same RAW file) - which would result in the best possible print.  Layers and other goodies just sweeten the deal with TIFF.
JPG is really a convenience file type for email, PowerPoint, etc. due to its smaller file size.

Tiff= Best possible image, but a larger file size.
JPG= Lossy, reduced image quality, but very useful in file sharing or when file size is a factor.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2009, 11:39:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: genedel
Based on your latest comments regarding TIFF vs PSD would it make sense to convert all my PSD files to TIFF?


For long term preservation and conservation, yes...do you need to do this immediately? Prolly not...I would just cut down on the use of PSD unless you have a specific need...
Logged
genedel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2009, 02:08:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
For long term preservation and conservation, yes...do you need to do this immediately? Prolly not...I would just cut down on the use of PSD unless you have a specific need...



Jeff,
Thanks
Gene
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2009, 09:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I've found an issue with using TIFF instead of PSD. When I save as TIFF, Photoshop does not preserve the GPS data in my images. Saving as PSD does.
Logged

joeholmes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2010, 07:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff Schewe wrote the words below about the advantages of TIFF over PSD two and a half years ago, in August 2007. We've gone through a whole new version of Photoshop since then, and I assume revisions of TIFF and the PSD standard, as well as changes to the third party apps that can read those formats.

Jeff -- how about an update? Is TIFF still preferred? For the same reasons?

-=-Joe


Quote from: Schewe
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.

TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.

TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.

TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?

PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.

Getting back to the fist point, Adobe can do anything including stopping support for PSD because it's a proprietary  file format. TIFF is public, even if it's owned by Adobe (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.

And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.

Look, I'll make it REAL simple...

TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad


Ok?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 07:54:55 AM by joeholmes » Logged
joofa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486



« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2010, 09:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: joeholmes
Jeff Schewe wrote the words below about the advantages of TIFF over PSD two and a half years ago, in August 2007.

Jeff -- how about an update? Is TIFF still preferred? For the same reasons?

Quote from: Schewe

TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.

-=-Joe

Tiff files file are not limited to just zip compression and can have many different flavors of compression, including jpeg compressed data within a tiff file!


Logged

Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com
Download Photoshop and After Effects plugins
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5655



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2010, 11:50:32 AM »
ReplyReply

FWITW, I use PSD as a simple indicator that the file is a work in progress... TIFF is reserved for a final product/file.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2010, 12:09:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Goodlistener
... Some of the image management programs can print from RAW, so I may avoid conversions and the associated overhead for versioning and storage in at least some cases.
...

I think you may run into some issues here.  

If you do your RAW editing in ACR or DPP, then try to import that RAW file into a printing tool like Qimage, I am fairly certain that your RAW edits would NOT be applied to your print.  DPP saves the RAW edits to a proprietary metadata portion of the CR2 file (nikon has an equivalent, I think).  ACR saves the RAW edits to an proprietary XMP sidecar file.  Qimage may not be able to read and render all the edits that are applied in a different tool.  The same is true for panoramic stitching tools that claim to read RAW files.  They do, but they don't apply any edits to the files.  The files are rendered "as shot."

TIFF is the best format for interchange between tools (unless your entire workflow remains within Adobe Creative Suite, for example).  I have begun saving all my final work in TIFF format.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2010, 12:32:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: joeholmes
Is TIFF still preferred? For the same reasons?


Yep...nothing has fundamentally changed in Photoshop CS4 nor Lightroom 2.x nor 3 beta.
Logged
joeholmes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2010, 12:51:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Yep...nothing has fundamentally changed in Photoshop CS4 nor Lightroom 2.x nor 3 beta.

Thank you, Jeff.
Logged
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2010, 05:19:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Goodlistener
"Why use TIFF??"
I’m currently revisiting a couple of old PCD files (Kodak Photo CD).
My first one is dated 1992. It is getting increasing difficult to open this file format.
Now, I’m saving the native conversion to TIFF for long term safety.

Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, I could imagine to do the same with the Raw files of earlier cameras,
after DPP legacy conversion, and/or after conversion with ACR/LR, thus to burn the parametric editing into TIFFs.

We always expect that newer software is better, but sometimes things are getting lost.

Peter

--
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad