Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ctein on PSD's  (Read 4374 times)
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381


« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2013, 09:23:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd rather just replace all PSD's as layered tiff's.  I will need to get more storage if I'm to make a tiff from every psd file. 
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2013, 09:33:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd rather just replace all PSD's as layered tiff's.  I will need to get more storage if I'm to make a tiff from every psd file. 

That would be my preference too. My question is whether the Image Processor can replace the PSDs, or does one need to manually go into the directory and delete them after the TIFFs are created.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BobShomler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2013, 09:33:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Right. You can choose where to save the tiffs in the Image Processor dialog box.  Select a specific destination folder, or select 'Save in Same Location' and a subfolder named TIFF will be created under your folder with the psd files and the newly created tiffs will be saved in that subfolder.  And while I described a method using Bridge, you can do this from within Photoshop if you want to process an entire folder of files:  File > Scripts > Image Processor then select source folder in the Image Processor dialog box.
Logged
BobShomler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2013, 09:34:22 AM »
ReplyReply

So far as I know you will need to manually delete the psds.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2013, 09:42:57 AM »
ReplyReply

That would be my preference too. My question is whether the Image Processor can replace the PSDs, or does one need to manually go into the directory and delete them after the TIFFs are created.
I don't think Image Processor can do so (unless it's automating an action that itself calls a script).

To delete from multiple folders, you could either use Lightroom, or Bridge has View > Show Items from Subfolders.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3674


« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2013, 09:55:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Yikes!  So I have to admit, I got a lot of PSD's.  Does someone have an action or something to convert them to TIFF's? 

Hi,

You can probably use ImageMagick to either convert and replace PSDs into TIFFs, or convert PSDs to TIFF duplicates. It can do batch conversions if you use the right command-line instructions.

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

Posts: 9164



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2013, 11:38:15 AM »
ReplyReply

You can probably use ImageMagick to either convert and replace PSDs into TIFFs, or convert PSDs to TIFF duplicates. It can do batch conversions if you use the right command-line instructions.

Quite doable in Photoshop with an action then a droplet or using Automate Batch. That's what I did, works like a charm.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5942


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2013, 12:02:41 PM »
ReplyReply

... I have a question for anybody willing to answer it: Why does anybody in this day and age use PSDs?

I do. Rarely though, given that most of my work never leaves Lightroom.

Why? Why not? If there is no practical difference, then either does fine.

I have some old psd files, from the time when TIFF did not have the same functionality.The main reason, though, is that when I see a psd file on my computer, I know it is mine. There are numerous sources for tiff files however, some downloaded from the internet, some come preloaded with various software.

At some point, in the pre-Lightroom era, I used to use psd to denote work in progress, and tiff as a final product.

And perhaps equally important, I tend to resist mass paranoia and cult following. Just because Tarzan said "tiff-good, psd-bad," doesn't make it so, at least not for everyone, and at least not in the short run. As a side note, and as a nod to another thread, that statement sounds positively Ken Rockwellesque Wink

I also do not fall easily for doomsday scenarios: if psd does become inaccessible at some point in the future, I will convert before that. Do not trouble the trouble until the trouble troubles you.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2013, 12:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

And perhaps equally important, I tend to resist mass paranoia and cult following. Just because Tarzan said "tiff-good, psd-bad," doesn't make it so, at least not for everyone, and at least not in the short run. As a side note, and as a nod to another thread, that statement sounds positively Ken Rockwellesque Wink

Yeah, except Tarzan's point of view came from direct discussion with Photoshop engineers and a knowledge of both the PSD and TIFF specs. Given the way people are reacting to the CC, more interest has now developed in avoiding vender lock-in and TIFF is publicly documented and adopted by the ISO. PSD? Not so much...loo bud, you are welcome to use whatever you want...as long as you understand the full ramifications. The fact that many people assume PSD is the "native Photoshop format" and therefore "better" to use was the point of my "Ken Rockwellesque" statements. And at least I have the benefit of being technically correct.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5942


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2013, 12:38:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, do not lose your sense of humor, man!

Come to think of it, my post is probably equally Ken Rockwellesque Wink
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 12:42:33 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7991



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2013, 12:55:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan,

I readily admit that I, too, have PSDs floating around on my PC. They date from my earliest days with PS, when I naively used "Save As" with the default format (PSD).

Since then, as I have gained some of the Wisdom of the Sages (Tarzan, Jeff, Michael, among others), I have used only TIFFs (or JPEGs when needed for the Web). There have been a few times when I have needed some of the images that were saved as PSDs, and it turned out that those times required some sort of submission as TIFFs, so I had to go into PS and save new versions.

My personal conclusion: PSD => nuisance (eventually, if not right away), while TIFF => OK for the foreseeable future.

As for your comparison of KenR to the Onion in that other thread, I must object. You are absolutely right on about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Fox News, but I find the Onion to provide frequent chuckles in almost every paragraph, while the few times I've glommed KR's scribblings, the seriously entertaining bits and the reasonably useful bits are few and far between.

Life is too short to spend time on KR's site or on Fox News, IMNSHO.

Eric M.

P.S. For solid news I also rely on Paul Krugman for economic news and Gail Collins for political reality checks, both on the NY Times.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 12:59:20 PM by Eric Myrvaagnes » Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9164



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2013, 01:07:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Short of support for duotone, what advantage if any is there from a PSD versus a TIFF?

In terms of TIFF advantages over PSD, can anyone suggest that less products can (and will) access a TIFF than PSD?
Logged

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

Posts: 98


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2013, 01:05:35 AM »
ReplyReply

TIFF is great but obsolescence, I think, is a little overblown. Anybody remember wordstar? You can find wordstar file converters, wordstar emulators, and even wordstar program if you want. The information technology is maturing. What happened in its infancy is not necessarily what will happen in future.

More importantly for me though, is ctein's (very valid) argument, that even if future programs can open old files, it is not necessary that they will render that file in the same way. So even though I can open PS7 psd in CS6, the algorithms today are different and it is quite likely that the final rendered output will be different from how I made it in PS7. So keep your archives in TIFF, but flattened tiffs.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2013, 01:13:51 AM »
ReplyReply

So even though I can open PS7 psd in CS6, the algorithms today are different and it is quite likely that the final rendered output will be different from how I made it in PS7. So keep your archives in TIFF, but flattened tiffs.

Actually, if the past is any indicator of the future, I don't think you need to worry about that. I've got images that were created starting with Photoshop 2.01 that will open correctly in Photoshop CS6 (and I presume, Photoshop CC). I think opening older versions in newer version isn't the problem. The real problem is opening newer version images in older versions of Photoshop. If in the newer version (such as CC) you save out a file containing CC versions, the ability to edit those images on older versions will be compromised. You should be able to open the images but CC+features will not be editable in older versions. But this is old news that has been an issue to deal with with every new version of Photoshop that is released. Keep things simple and stuff will be backwards compatible except for those features that don't exist in the older versions. Simply pixel layers and most adjustment layers should be no problem. Smart Objects can get dicey...
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad