Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: psd or tiff?  (Read 8167 times)
mouse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« on: February 07, 2014, 01:25:15 PM »
ReplyReply

My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.

The format choices seem to be psd or tiff.  Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?

Thanks.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2014, 01:56:16 PM »
ReplyReply

My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.

The format choices seem to be psd or tiff.  Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?

Thanks.

Schewe had some strong negative words about .PSD ... and to hear that from Schewe about something originating from Adobe means that .PSD is bad  Roll Eyes
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2014, 02:02:58 PM »
ReplyReply

PSD is 'bad' as it is a proprietary file format that provides nothing (other than Dutone support) that TIFF, an open format provides. Far, far more applications can read TIFFs, it cost nothing for a software company to include while PSD costs them via licensing. So, if your goal is long term archival storage, TIFF is the way to go.

Schewe has made comments on the Photoshop team's opinion of PSD which I'll let him provide rather than 2nd hand. But the bottom line is, save TIFF if your goal is a format that provides long term and flexible options.
Logged

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

Posts: 298



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2014, 11:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.

The format choices seem to be psd or tiff.  Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?

Not certain that your question has been answered yet. Are you perhaps referring to technical advantages rather than the universal nature of TIFF files?

Just a thought . . .
Logged

best regards,

Ted
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2067


« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2014, 12:31:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Andrew Rodney is exactly on the money - TIFF is the way to go.
There are no 'technical' advantages between the two.

Tony Jay
Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2014, 11:03:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Andrew Rodney is exactly on the money - TIFF is the way to go.
There are no 'technical' advantages between the two.

Tony Jay

You did miss the one technical advantage of PSD over TIFF and that is saving duotone information.
Personally I save my edited files as PSD because Photoshop is my preferred image editor. When I send a file out for print or publication, it is either TIFF or PDF.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2014, 11:14:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there a way to batch process/convert PSD's to TIFF's.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2738



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2014, 11:39:36 AM »
ReplyReply

You did miss the one technical advantage of PSD over TIFF and that is saving duotone information.
You're right, though who needs duotone mode nowadays? Two other equally obscure "advantages" for acting as displacement maps, and providing transparency in InDesign.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2014, 11:45:36 AM »
ReplyReply

You're right, though who needs duotone mode nowadays? Two other equally obscure "advantages" for acting as displacement maps, and providing transparency in InDesign.
That's my thinking too. I can't recall the last time I got anywhere near it.

My understanding is that there are some 'advantages' to layered PSD's in InDesign. Mostly workflow like updating individual layers or something like that. I use ID with TIFF's and just bounce back and forth from it and Photoshop so unless you are a major ID gear head, like duotone support, not that useful.
Logged

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

Posts: 2738



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2014, 11:47:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there a way to batch process/convert PSD's to TIFF's.
The key is how you select them - in Bridge, Lightroom, Explorer/Finder. Once you've done that, there are a few ways to batch process them but it will probably involving writing a simple action and calling it from Image Processor. Or you might save the action as a droplet and call it from Lightroom. It's doable, but it's probably better to get things right from now on and not worry about legacy PSDs.

Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2014, 11:50:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there a way to batch process/convert PSD's to TIFF's.

I built a droplet from an Action. Then consider ZIP compression (slower save and open, smaller on disk?).
Logged

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

Posts: 150


« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2014, 02:47:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks to all who responded.
Since there is no clear advantage (for my needs) to the psd format, and the tiff is better for archival purposes, I have my answer.
Logged
nairb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2014, 06:26:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have a suggestion for files that exceed the 4GB Tiff specification? I see there is an attempt to make a bigtiff format, which it seems cs6 is capable of reading but not writing.

I have been stitching very large panoramas and so far have only been able to use .psb for saving the few really large ones I've got. I'm currently using cs5.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2014, 06:28:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have a suggestion for files that exceed the 4GB Tiff specification? I see there is an attempt to make a bigtiff format, which it seems cs6 is capable of reading but not writing.
In that case, you'll need to stick with PSB.
Logged

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

Posts: 203


« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2014, 06:49:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have a suggestion for files that exceed the 4GB Tiff specification? I see there is an attempt to make a bigtiff format, which it seems cs6 is capable of reading but not writing.

I have been stitching very large panoramas and so far have only been able to use .psb for saving the few really large ones I've got. I'm currently using cs5.

There's no need to have the entire workflow in one file.  You can easily flatten at some point to reduce size and then continue on with your workflow to keep the file under 4
gb.  That would eliminate the need for PSB.

Victor
Logged
Simon J.A. Simpson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2014, 03:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply

My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.

The format choices seem to be psd or tiff.  Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?

Thanks.

TIFFs have two file compression choices (LZW and ZIP) and two layer compression choices (RLE and ZIP).

TIFFs using LZW/ZIP compression and RLE layer compression produces files roughly twice the size of PSD and TIFFs with ZIP compression and ZIP layer compression.
PSD and TIFFs with ZIP+ZIP are slower to save and open than TIFFs using RLE layer compression (LZW and ZIP file compression).

So PSD and TIFF ZIP+ZIP give you smaller but slower saving and opening files.
TIFFs (LZW and ZIP) using RLE layer compression give you large files but faster opening and saving.

Best look at the TIFF saving dialogue box when trying to make sense of the above.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2014, 05:01:13 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a tad OT but I discovered this while playing around with TIFF vs. PSD.

I’m seeing issues under 10.9 with TIFF and PSD in terms of file compatibility outside Photoshop. Wondering if anyone else can replicate it, even on Windows. Trying to figure out if this is an OS or Adobe bug.

I’m creating a document with layers, path’s, Smart Objects and Alpha Channels. It is the Apha Channel that seems to be the issue whereby both the thumbnail seen in the Finder, and more importantly how other app’s preview the content of the image (Preview, Text Edit, MS Word, Graphic Converter). In a nutshell, only the image portion defined within the Alpha Channel show, evertying else can’t be seen. Trying differing compression for TIFF doesn’t alter this result. The same issues appear with PSD. Of course Photoshop and InDesign show the image correctly but no other app’s do. Only when I remove the Alpha Channel do all other applications handle both PSD and TIFF correctly.

I’ve got two TIFFs (as PSD behave the same). One has a layer, a Smart Object and a path. It works fine in other app’s and previews correctly in the Finder. The 2nd document is identical expect I’ve created an Alpha Channel. It does not preview correctly in the Finder and when opened in various application only show the image content defined in the Alpha Channel. Can upload the two if anyone is interested.
Logged

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

Posts: 2738



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2014, 05:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Pretty sure that's a long standing issue, Andrew. I've a vague memory that it's related to apps making use of QuickTime to read the file. Does that ring a bell?

John
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2014, 05:10:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't ring a bell but I did see Graphic Converter, one of the app's I tested, specify something about altering the PSD preferences to disable "Use QuickTime/CoreImage" option. That did help in that one case. If so, Windows users would be immune to this?
Logged

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

Posts: 8763



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2014, 05:14:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's the warning and having to force sRGB onto the doc isn't a good one:

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad