Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World  (Read 13190 times)
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2013, 11:00:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Could you elaborate as to why you didn't care?

Cheers,
Bart

because they are more at a level of Elements.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2013, 11:56:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I think non-destructive editing with layers and masking is probably adobe's most substantial photoshop innovation that can't easily be replaced. Elements and many of these less sophisticated tools don't have non-destructive editing.

If adobe added non-destructive editing to Elements and enabled me to install all the same plugins, I would probably be able to get by easily...maybe with lightroom on the side for advanced ACR features.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 3910


« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2013, 12:24:23 PM »
ReplyReply

because they are more at a level of Elements.

Hi Kirk,

That's odd, certainly from a technical image quality point of view. For example, the scaling quality of Photoline is superior to Photoshop CS6, since it offers Lanczos-3 and Lanczos-8 resampling filters, and they are implemented well, and in 16-bit/channel. This produces much better results when e.g. down-sampling for web-publishing, and virtually all images must be down-sampled to prevent bandwidth issues. That also produces better quality when correcting e.g. keystoning, or other warping/morphing of images.

I've just been tinkering with the selection/masking tools, and they seem to challenge even Photoshop CS6 in ease of use and quality.

It is possible to set the display resolution in order to preview output at the actual size, a feature recently removed from Photoshop CS6 Cloud version, don't know if Elements still offers it.

Of course one can proof output, fully color-managed obviously (16-bit/channel also helps to avoid the need to dither when converting between Colorspaces).

EXR and PDF files are supported.

And there are probably others I have yet to try. I'm genuinely impressed by what it can do.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 12:53:46 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 303


WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2013, 12:30:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I think non-destructive editing with layers and masking is probably adobe's most substantial photoshop innovation that can't easily be replaced. Elements and many of these less sophisticated tools don't have non-destructive editing.

If adobe added non-destructive editing to Elements and enabled me to install all the same plugins, I would probably be able to get by easily...maybe with lightroom on the side for advanced ACR features.

I don't use LR or Elements, but I understand neither has soft proofing, which IMO is a requirement for printing. I know Qimage has soft proofing. I used a trial version several years ago but found it to be on pretty tedious/cumbersome. I see there's a new incarnation available so perhaps it's time for another try.
Logged

- Dean
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2013, 01:28:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't use LR or Elements, but I understand neither has soft proofing, ...

Google finds -- Using Photoshop Lightroom 4 / Developing photos / Soft-proof images

Not what you're looking for?
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2013, 01:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't use LR or Elements, but I understand neither has soft proofing, which IMO is a requirement for printing. I know Qimage has soft proofing. I used a trial version several years ago but found it to be on pretty tedious/cumbersome. I see there's a new incarnation available so perhaps it's time for another try.

Qimage is still quirky, but it works very well.  Once you learn how to use it, it is more efficient than PS.  I can see how you found it tedious though.

Logged

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

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

Posts: 303


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2013, 02:26:39 PM »
ReplyReply


Actually that's it. I obviously haven't looked into LR for a long time. Thanks!
Logged

- Dean
mouse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2013, 05:37:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I think, to answer the OP's question, TIFF would be a better alternative, especially because it allows to store a full Works-in-Progress layered version of your images.
Cheers,
Bart

If my understanding is correct, "a full Works-in-Progress layered version" produced by PS could not be opened and further processed by any editing software other than PS.  A flattened version could, presumably, be opened by other editing software.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2013, 06:01:49 PM »
ReplyReply

If my understanding is correct, "a full Works-in-Progress layered version" produced by PS could not be opened and further processed by any editing software other than PS.  A flattened version could, presumably, be opened by other editing software.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad