Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: psd or tiff?  (Read 8367 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2014, 05:24:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess on Mac they rolled QT into Core Image, which wouldn't be available on Windows. But there may be some apps which still use a QT library, though one would have to look at each app individually.
Logged

Lightsmith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2014, 06:46:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I have for every image a RAW file and with post processing I generate TIFF for third party use and JPEG for Web and casual uses. The PSD would add more data storage and archival requirements and has no value for the way I work with the image files.

Even with InDesign I prefer to bring in a TIFF file. It is probably better to work with PSD and have the smart objects capabilities but I work in InDesign as little as possible.

I am moving away from Adobe applications now that we are being forced to access them online and rent them as a service. TIFF files provides a better foundation for this migration.
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2014, 03:59:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Victor,

that is all very good if a single layer is less then 4Gb

Henrik

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
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2014, 04:05:34 PM »
ReplyReply

In my workflow, I go from RAW to PSB/PSD, as I look at TIFF and JPEG as output files. Size isn't an issue

on some occasions where I need to RAW files processed to enter another process such as PTGui (panoramic) I convert RAW to TIFF, but these are only temp files.

Henrik
Logged
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 631



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2014, 08:32:34 PM »
ReplyReply

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


Image Processor and Image Processor Pro will render a folder full of Tiff, PSD or Jpeg files into any of these file flavors. No programming, actions or droplets needed.
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2014, 08:57:38 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
This will also make for a destructive workflow, something many of us like to avoid.
I never flatten any work. Don't see the point myself, particularly when software improvements mean you can go back and improve older images.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2014, 09:06:57 PM »
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.
Um....those who like the look duotone gives. And it really pisses me off that LR refuses to acknowledge PSD files that are duo/tri-toned.
Displacement maps are not obscure amongst retouchers/compositers and designers like to use Photoshop & ID. Those groups of people will make up a much larger percentage of Photoshop users than photographers too.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2014, 03:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

There's a good reason why those 3 exceptions are hardly known - few Photoshop users ever use them. For almost all practical purposes, use TIF.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2014, 07:53:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think they are as unknown as you think. I've used all three and using displacement maps to wrap objects when compositing/doing design is a bog standard procedure and so is using transparency in ID. Yes they may not be so well known by those who do not composite work or do design layout, but as I said above, photographers who tend not to do that sort of work are a very small part of PS's user base.
If you'd said few photographers use them that's different and may be true.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2014, 10:05:45 AM »
ReplyReply

There's a good reason why those 3 exceptions are hardly known - few Photoshop users ever use them. For almost all practical purposes, use TIF.
Exactly! IF you must build a duotone (and I suspect the numbers are tiny), then use PSD. Otherwise stick with TIFF. No one said the two were functionality exactly equivalent, the duotone support was outlined. For all practical purposes, and the term practical is kind of important to each individual reader, stick with TIFF! End of story.
Logged

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

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2014, 10:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

This will also make for a destructive workflow, something many of us like to avoid.
BTW, layers are only 'non destructive' if your idea of non destructive is the ability to undo an edit. Print that image, layers or not, you've got the destruction of the edits all applied and going to the printer or saving outside of PS. There's no free lunch unless you're making parametric instructions which build pixels. An adjustment layer applies the adjustment and there is rounding errors and 'destruction' (alteration to the data) the second you print the image, no way around that. PS flattens that data, it has to! If you're done editing the image, flatten the image, there's no advantage to not flattening in terms of so called data destruction. And do the work high bit, it's moot anyway (you have more than enough data to output the image).
Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2014, 03:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW, layers are only 'non destructive' if your idea of non destructive is the ability to undo an edit. Print that image, layers or not, you've got the destruction of the edits all applied and going to the printer or saving outside of PS. There's no free lunch unless you're making parametric instructions which build pixels. An adjustment layer applies the adjustment and there is rounding errors and 'destruction' (alteration to the data) the second you print the image, no way around that. PS flattens that data, it has to! If you're done editing the image, flatten the image, there's no advantage to not flattening in terms of so called data destruction. And do the work high bit, it's moot anyway (you have more than enough data to output the image).
Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or genuinely believe the nonsense you come out with, Old Dog.
I can go back and re-edit my PS files from scratch or tweak alterations with no problem, which would not be the case if I flattened the file - which was the point being made and which you deliberately ignored. Making a print from a file or or saving it does not alter that. Surely by your 'logic' LR is destructive if you make a print too.  Roll Eyes
My workflow within PS is pretty much non-destructive as it happens and has been for many years. I seem to recall you wittering on about how you could not work non-destructively in PS some years back and you didn't make any more sense back then either.
But then I'm sure you'll try and redefine the English language to make it mean whatever you believe.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2014, 03:37:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or genuinely believe the nonsense you come out with, Old Dog.
I can go back and re-edit my PS files from scratch or tweak alterations with no problem, which would not be the case if I flattened the file -
You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Try again. Undo-ing edits isn't (totally) non destructive editing. Flatten, don't flatten, the data going to the printer, the data outside all those proprietary Adobe edits do produce roudning errors and is destructive. Bit depth is important. If you're done editing, flatten or not, the results upon the data are the same. If that is obtruse, I'll have to try another way to explain the facts of the data to you.
Logged

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

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2014, 03:39:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Surely by your 'logic' LR is destructive if you make a print too.  Roll Eyes
Actually no and had you read or understood the post I made, you'd see I stated that too.
Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2014, 05:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Try again. Undo-ing edits isn't (totally) non destructive editing. Flatten, don't flatten, the data going to the printer, the data outside all those proprietary Adobe edits do produce roudning errors and is destructive. Bit depth is important. If you're done editing, flatten or not, the results upon the data are the same. If that is obtruse, I'll have to try another way to explain the facts of the data to you.
I did read what you wrote, I make a point of reading people's post very carefully before replying and have very little time for numpties like yourself who do not show the same curtesy. Once again it is you who doesn't read other's posts correctly and then you argue a load of irrelevant crap. Which is one of the reasons why you pissed off so many people in another thread recently
The point that completely seems to escape you is that I'm not done editing just because I made a print, as I can go back and re-edit any time I want. Because I have not flattened the image. Are you really so very dippy, you do not understand this? If you flatten you have to start from scratch, if you do not flatten, you can carry on editing and even go back and easily re-tweak. That was the point, the only point I was making. Rounding errors and bit depth have absolutely nothing to do with that, nada, zero, zilch. And if you are smart and know how to use PS all your original data is still there completely intact. Which is about as non-destructive as it gets and once you've re-tweaked, you can print another version. Re-edit, print; re-edit, print; re-edit, print;..........

Actually no and had you read or understood the post I made, you'd see I stated that too.
I did read and 'understand' post where you tripped yourself up with your own 'logic'.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2014, 05:47:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I did read and 'understand' post where you tripped yourself up with your own 'logic'.
Clearly you didn't. Enough said.
Logged

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

Posts: 229



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 18, 2014, 11:44:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a file with three adjustment layers that saves to 476 MB using .psd without Max Compatibility. With Max Compatibility, that version jumps to 948 MB. As a .tif with ZIP+ZIP compression, this file is to 921 MB. As .tif ZIP+RLE, it jumps 1.41 GB. Since it's a 16 bit file, LZW compression brings it even higher, to 1.56 GB.

Choose your formats carefully!
Logged

http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2014, 06:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Clearly you didn't. Enough said.
So you still cannot justify why you seem to think there is no difference between a flattened and non flattened file then and resort to insults instead?  According to you they are both destructive, despite the fact that with one all edits are applied with no going back. And with the other if you are smart, it can be completely non-destructive with all edits undo-able.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2014, 09:50:48 AM »
ReplyReply

So you still cannot justify why you seem to think there is no difference between a flattened and non flattened file then and resort to insults instead?  According to you they are both destructive, despite the fact that with one all edits are applied with no going back. And with the other if you are smart, it can be completely non-destructive with all edits undo-able.
OK, I was hoping to be an adult in the room and move on. But you insist on being shown your inability to read and comprehend English. I'll try again. Here's an exact copy and paste of what I wrote:
Quote
BTW, layers are only 'non destructive' if your idea of non destructive is the ability to undo an edit.
You wrote:
Quote
I can go back and re-edit my PS files from scratch or tweak alterations with no problem, which would not be the case if I flattened the file - which was the point being made and which you deliberately ignored.
Let me try again using bold type and colors, because again, clearly you missed the point:
BTW, layers are only 'non destructive' if your idea of non destructive is the ability to undo an edit.

So your response above shows you clearly missed the point of destructive and non destructive operations on data with any set of layers. Of course you also missed the part about LR probably because the term parametric edits went over your head and it's not your style to ask questions with the aim of understanding a process.

And you of course totally missed the point of vjbelle: There's no need to have the entire workflow in one file. If you are done editing (see, I wrote it again, take note), there is NO difference in the data in terms of data loss: send that data to a printer, it's functionally akin to flattening the data, the edits are applied to the data, there IS data loss. It is not non destructive. There is no free lunch. Work in high bit. So to write this again, hopefully in a way that your distortion warped duotoned mind can understand, if you are done editing, there is nothing the layers do for you. You might as well do as others here have suggested, flatten the file and save it as a TIFF. Yes! Outside editing again, there is no difference between a flattened file and a layered file in terms of the data and data loss going to a printer, being accessed outside Photoshop etc. The data was edited, there are rounding errors, there is data loss. In both cases. Hopefully short sentences are easier for you to comprehend.
Quote
I did read what you wrote, I make a point of reading people's post very carefully before replying and have very little time for numpties like yourself who do not show the same curtesy.
You may have read it, you clearly didn't understand it. You may think you read the post(s) carefully, obviously this wasn't the case. If anyone is being far from courteous (you wrote curtesy?) it's you sir, with the sentence you wrote just above a prefect example among others on just this page. Pot calling the kettle black. So I'm giving some back here, you certainly deserve it. Seems you are no better at reading and writing your own posts then those of others.
Now you probably should take my advise and move on. I suspect you couldn’t debate yourself out of a wet paper bag  Grin
Logged

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

Posts: 9000



WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2014, 10:36:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Um....those who like the look duotone gives.
Getting back OT, easy to dismiss your concepts for PSD: Make dutone as you desire, convert to RGB (or CMYK for output), done. Same color appearance, can save TIFF. No need for duotones.
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