Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World  (Read 8367 times)
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2013, 07:30:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you're making a mistake paying the subscription fee. You should just stick with CS6, which should be good for a long time to come. I think that one of the reasons why Adobe are moving to the rental model is that it's getting harder and harder to add new features to Photoshop that people think are worth an upgrade.

Sticking with CS6 will save you money, and you should retain the ability to open any files that you create for the foreseeable future. I doubt that you'll miss out on any "must have" features any time soon. Remember that you always have the option of subscribing later on if Adobe add a feature that you really need.

Yes, I will stick with CS6 as long as I can.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 686



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2013, 08:38:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I tried saving a jpeg image as a tiff and bmp.  Both resultant files had the same amount of pixels.  So what would the difference be by saving as bmp or  tiff?  You can always convert back to tiff from bmp without loss.  No?    This way you can saved all your files without worrying about having to pay fees for tiff in the future.  No?
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2013, 10:30:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I tried saving a jpeg image as a tiff and bmp.  Both resultant files had the same amount of pixels.  So what would the difference be by saving as bmp or  tiff?  You can always convert back to tiff from bmp without loss.  No?    This way you can saved all your files without worrying about having to pay fees for tiff in the future.  No?

Alan, it isn't the same:

JPG is lossy.  each subsequent open resave and close of the file recompresses the file diminishes the original quality.  One save generation is generally imperceptible.  Two or three or, heaven forbid, ten save generations will substantially degrade quality.

BMP doesn't support layers. I use adjustment layers extensively.

TIFF supports layers and has loss-less compression
Logged

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

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

Posts: 8978



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2013, 10:35:04 AM »
ReplyReply

BMP doesn't support layers. I use adjustment layers extensively.

Or 16-bit data it appears. Worthless!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3575


« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2013, 11:28:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I use adjustment layers extensively.

Hi Marc,

I'm not sure if you know, but it might be useful for your kind of photography; Topaz Labs have a utility called photoFXlab that is not only a command center for their excellent plugins (you'll definitively love their Adjust and Detail plugins), but it is also offering blending layers with masking and edge aware brushes to apply all sorts of localized adjustments, and brightness adjustments that do not screw up color. I'm seriously impressed with that little devil.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. you can use the application indefinitely after paying, and upgrades sofar have all been for free even for new versions.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 11:33:23 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 466


« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2013, 02:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

THE CC is a killer for amateurs like me. I am 76 years old, and built my 1st chemical darkroom in 1959. Obviously, I have a ton of negatives, scanned negative files, and original digital files. Even though I am an amateur, I supplement my (fixed) income by selling my framed seascapes. I just upgraded to CS6, thinking I was good for several years or so. I am now screwed; I always tried to save up enough money to PURCHASE what I wanted, in lieu of renting. My files (most in layered PSDs), are to me and my family priceless. I had hoped my kids and grandkids would cherish my work, and be able to use the files if they so chose. $20 a month is not a game changer for me, but add it up over several years....and everyone knows once I am"hooked" the price will sure as heck go up. I tried Lightroom, but I am just too old to change from Bridge and PS.
Regards all
Dave in NJ
www.modernpictorials.com
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2775


« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2013, 11:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I just upgraded to CS6, thinking I was good for several years or so. I am now screwed...

What stops you using CS6 for several years?

Do you mean that you upgraded to CC6 (Creative Cloud subscription) rather than to Creative Suite?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 12:50:31 PM by Isaac » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2775


« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2013, 11:38:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I've advocated TIFF for years (for the same reason I advocate DNGs) and in fact there's a rather notorious thread here on LuLa...

For the curious --

"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... Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue."
Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 466


« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2013, 09:08:49 PM »
ReplyReply

What stops you using CS6 for several years?

Do you mean that you upgraded to CC6 (Creative Cloud subscription) rather than to Creative Suite?
I certainly hope I can use CS 6 for several years. I use ACR for most of my raw conversions, and so far all my cameras are covered. If I were to change systems, or purchase the latest bells and whistles camera, it might not be covered. I think I paid about $150 for the upgrade; $20 per year is $240, two years $480! To me, this is outragious.
Regards
Dave
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2775


« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2013, 10:43:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I certainly hope I can use CS 6 for several years.

Seems like you'll be able to continue doing what you were doing -- not "screwed".

If I were to change systems, or purchase the latest bells and whistles camera, it might not be covered.

So not too old to change to the latest bells and whistles camera ;-)

True, an older PS might not cover processing RAW for some newer camera system you choose to buy.


To me, this is outrageous.

To me, this might be expensive or maybe not so expensive depending on how the details of subscription actually work out for each of us.

For example, the website pricing seems to show $10/mo (with a CS3+ purchase). I wonder if purchase of just the single app PS CS3+ counts for that?

For example, the website pricing seems to show $30/mo for a cancel at any time subscription. I wonder if we can just subscribe in January and August, do our photo-processing in those months and pay only $60 that year?

(To me, outrageous is children going hungry in the world's richest nation, and all those other everyday horrors.)
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 11:04:49 AM by Isaac » Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2013, 10:45:44 AM »
ReplyReply

...

(To me, outrageous is children going hungry in the world's richest nation, and all those other everyday horrors.)


First world problems, eh.

I am not happy with Adobe, but this isn't the end of the world.  Moving towards TIFF seems like a wise move at this point, but other than that, I will enjoy CS6 as long as I can and watch for alternatives.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 218


« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2013, 08:08:52 PM »
ReplyReply


TIFF supports layers

What do you mean "supports layers"? If you saved a PSD file as TIFF today then reopened the TIFF ten years from now in a PS CC, will PHotoshop restore all the layer masks and smart objects?
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2013, 08:40:43 PM »
ReplyReply

What do you mean "supports layers"? If you saved a PSD file as TIFF today then reopened the TIFF ten years from now in a PS CC, will PHotoshop restore all the layer masks and smart objects?

if all goes as it does today, YES.
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: 272


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2013, 08:45:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I know there are some very good alternatives to Adobe for RAW image conversion, DxO for one, but what about Photoshop? I haven't seen much in the way of alternatives, but then I never felt the need to look until now. Any suggestions?

Hopefully some capable software company will find a great opportunity in this fiasco.
Logged

- Dean
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2013, 06:52:12 AM »
ReplyReply

There are already a bunch of tools that you can cobble together to do many of the photoshop functions.  It is the integration and convenience that PS really gives us. 

I already print with Qimage.  Very good for photo layouts, output sharpening, and color management/profiles.  Topaz workshop is supposed to be good.  Breeze Systems Breeze Browser Pro is quite nice to replace bridge.  Topaz, and neat image both have standalone noise reduction software.  NIK has sharpening software that is well regarded.  Nik as well as Photomatix have great HDR software.  OnOne has lots of apps including one for resizing and a couple for retouching.  As a matter of fact, OnOne may have the most robust selection of tools.  All these companies have got to be salivating at the prospect of picking up disaffected CS users.  Don't even get me started on all the options for panoramic stitching.  There are so many great plugins to photoshop out there that I wouldn't be surprised if they started to see this as an opportunity to offer their software standalone or as plugins to gimp...of course there is gimp which is respectably decent. 

So, I already use:
PSCS6
PTGUI
Qimage
Photomatix
Neat Image

If I added On One retouching and resizing software along with breeze browser pro and Capture One Pro for RAW processing, I have 80% of my functions back.  As I said before, the real loss is in integration, particularly with reference to the great masking and layering capabilities of CS. Though I haven't looked hard, I don't know of any software that is as flexible in this regard.

I wonder how GIMP handles layers and plugins.


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
****
Online Online

Posts: 3575


« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2013, 06:54:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I know there are some very good alternatives to Adobe for RAW image conversion, DxO for one, but what about Photoshop? I haven't seen much in the way of alternatives, but then I never felt the need to look until now. Any suggestions?

Hi Dean,

While it doesn't have a user interface as slick looking as Photoshop's, Photoline seems to be an extremely capable alternative (even superior in some aspects) for a very modest price.

It's evidently a product made by quite capable engineers, very well thought out and feature rich, but a bit lacking in the presentation. But hey, it doesn't clutter the harddisk-space (the 64-bit version occupies less than 50MB on my harddisk), has adjustment layers and masks, and works with existing plugins such as from e.g. Topaz-Labs and FocusMagic.

Here are some informative instruction videos to quickly get up to speed with Photoline:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6dYTUBnf2o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls7MjX_GyiI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3PuhaSwXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsOXwlbEf1M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M29xJCs6NTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhYw-mFhuB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIBBolXf9h8


Quote
Hopefully some capable software company will find a great opportunity in this fiasco.

Competition would ultimately even be good for Adobe ..., but it does require that these smaller initiatives get enough financial backing by motivated users, now is a good time to do that.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2013, 10:34:55 AM »
ReplyReply

My 2-cents, DEFINITELY TIFF. Too frequently over the past several years, if I have a corrupt image file, it's usually a PSD. I kick myself every time I purposely save a layered file as a PSD, because it comes back to haunt as as corrupted (see thumbnails and final opened image). My only exception is if i'm working in CMYK (or duo- tri-tone), and creating a silhouette. I find, for use with InDesign, saving a file where the background has been knocked out (checkerboard), renders a better image than most clipping paths, etc. If I use a TIFF of the same characteristics, it doesn't hold the transparency.

Re: Photoshop alternatives -- there are about three or four decent alternatives. I've tried GIMP and Photoline. Sad to say, I didn't really care for either. I have a trial of Corel Paintshop Pro X5, which is one of the oldest and most respected alternatives to Photoshop, but haven't really tried it much yet.

Nemo
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3575


« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2013, 10:46:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Re: Photoshop alternatives -- there are about three or four decent alternatives. I've tried GIMP and Photoline. Sad to say, I didn't really care for either.

Hi,

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

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2013, 10:56:47 AM »
ReplyReply

TIFF is almost license-free and is near perfect for archival. If you really want a file format that is totally free and fully customizable then look at OpenEXR.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2013, 10:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc and Bart Ė Thanks!
Information like this is exactly what I was looking for. Iíve been using Photoshop since about 1997 and havenít seriously looked at alternatives until now. While I know little about some of the software youíve mentioned it turns out Iíve been using a couple of your suggestions for quite a while already.
 
Finding Files and RAW conversion: I keep files organized in a folder structure thatís organized by both date and place, with separate folders for processed files that are organized the same way. Iíve used Breeze Browser for image browsing since it came on the market. It has a small footprint, is fast, inexpensive, and doesnít create any proprietary databases. Iíve never felt any need for Adobe Bridge and essentially havenít used it even though Iíve had it on my computer since it was introduced. In addition to browsing BreezeBrowser is also a decent RAW file converter. As believe it uses Canonís RAW conversion SDK so you get the same color rendition and quality as Canon DPP but with a much friendlier user interface. I use BreezeBrowser on a laptop in the field for quick conversions to see what Iíve got, and at home for finding files and occasionally for RAW conversion. The RAW converter is very basic but itís also very good. ACR is a lot more versatile, especially for problem images, but I sometimes struggle to get the same natural color rendition I get with just a few clicks in Breeze Browser. In addition I sometimes use DxO for RAW conversion. The lens/camera corrections are great if youíre using a supported combination, and in that case I think it can do a fantastic job of capture sharpening (though thatís not what they call it). I donít really like the user interface much, but once you get used to it the results can be wonderful. Due to its overall versatility my main RAW converter is still ACR, but I could get along fine without it given a few options like these.

Iíve also used Neat Image in the past and found it to be very good. I stopped using it years ago and havenít updated due to advances in ACR and Photoshop. That could easily change and there are a couple other noise reduction packages like Topaz that also seem very capable now. Some, again like Topaz, are PS plug-ins but they seem to also be supported by Corel, Photoline, and perhaps others.

Given the right collection of programs I could imagine myself in a world without Adobe today, except for the extensive masking and layering capabilities of Photoshop. Thatís a ďmust haveĒ for me, in addition to supporting all of my current PSD files. Hopefully there will be more than one company offering that sort of capability before CS6 becomes useless.

Thanks again!

P.S. Nemo, FWIW I've literally never had a corrupt PSD file. There may be something else going on. I'd back everything up soon if I were you.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad