Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Goodlistener on August 19, 2007, 10:14:15 pm
-
I notice that a number of experience photographers convert to TIFF somewhere early in their workflow. I'm new to this and trying to put together a practical work-flow sofware suite. Can I please ask: "Why use TIFF??"
It seems like keeping master iles in RAW and convering to JPG if needed for some particular output would avoid a step in the process and use less storage space. Despit the fact that I can't see the wisdom of it, the people who do use TIFF are generally very highly qualified and I'm sure there is a good reason. But what is it?
Thanks for pointing me the right way!
By way of backgound, I'm using Canon equipment, DPP RAW converter and Canon image viewing software now when I shoot RAW - which is most of the time. If I shoot JPG, then I like iPhoto.
-
I'm not a professional and I'm not one of those 'very highly qualified people' you referred to but here's my situation.
While RAW contains all of the colour information in the original camera image, most (all?) programs on the market at this time cannot save back to a RAW format so RAW is not an available format to save in.
If like me you use one of the RAW Management/Processing apps such as Aperture, iPhoto, Lightroom and Capture, then you might not need to think about an output format at all. Aperture works from the original RAW file every time an adjustment is made. What is viewed on screen is a JPG screen preview created from that RAW file.
If however you need to make edits outside of your management software; eg in Photoshop; then you need to save in a format other than RAW. Jpeg is not an option because it loses data during the compression process and anyone working in RAW is unlikely to want to lose data before their edits. JPEG2000 would work (it has a lossless 'wavelet' compression mode) but many programs don't yet fully support it. Aperture doesn't support it. Photoshop might support it but I'm not sure how well (there are various levels of JPEG2000 support; SilverFast fully supports it). For most people, the only other option is TIFF because it saves all of the colour information in your image and does so without loss.
If you're exporting your images as a final product from which you'll print, then you can probably save to JPG, just as long as you don't plan any more edits in that file.
If I shoot JPG, then I like iPhoto.
you haven't seen iPhoto '08 yet, have you ;-) it's pretty amazing and has features that make me want to give up Aperture and move 'back' to iPhoto. iPhoto '06 and '08 both have full support for RAW images so with the new features available in '08, most people have very little reason to need Aperture in preference to iPhoto.
regards,
Gregory
-
Tiff is 16 bit and supports layers.
-
You can't save edits like sharpening, local contrast enhancement, cloning (dust spot removal), multi-image blends (HDR, stitching, etc), or anything involving third-party plug-ins to a RAW file. Actually, you can't save any edits to a RAW file, all you can save is conversion settings. So once you've edited the converted RAW, you need to save in a format that supports 16-bit and whatever image or adjustment layers and layer masks you've added to the image. Your main options are PSD and TIFF. I use PSD, but TIFF works, too.
You wouldn't want to save back to your RAW anyway, that's your original negative, and shouldn't be altered.
-
Thanks Dark Penguin, Jonathan and all, good stuff as usual. Given that PSG and TIFF both support layers, is there any advantage for one over the other? It looks like sucesful photographers are as likely to use one as the other, and I don't need to worry about it too much. But, just curious: does a TIFF or a PSG file take up much more space than the other, all else being equal?
-
One good reason to choose TIFF over PSD is that the latter is specifically a Photoshop format, while the former is a very general-purpose file format that most people can read with many types of software.
Lisa
P.S. Someone might very well point out that some other image-manipulation programs may be able to read PSD files, but it's still primarily a Photoshop format, and much less general-purpose (and much less common among the "general public") than TIFF.
-
Somewhere on these forums Schewe (did I spell that right?) explains the difference.
The net of it is that .psd is more limiting. Use tiff.
-
Somewhere on these forums Schewe (did I spell that right?) explains the difference.
The net of it is that .psd is more limiting. Use tiff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK. I'm convinced, if I need layers, use TIFF. It looks like if I don't need the layers, then I can use RAW up until the point where I need output and then convert to whateve format is required for the output device / media. Some of the image management programs can print from RAW, so I may avoid conversions and the associated overhead for versioning and storage in at least some cases.
OK: Its off Topic time in lL Land. Does anybody like Reggae music? Check out Israel Vibrations, "Cool and Calm" track.
-
OK. I'm convinced, if I need layers, use TIFF. It looks like if I don't need the layers, then I can use RAW up until the point where I need output and then convert to whateve format is required for the output device / media. Some of the image management programs can print from RAW, so I may avoid conversions and the associated overhead for versioning and storage in at least some cases.
OK: Its off Topic time in lL Land. Does anybody like Reggae music? Check out Israel Vibrations, "Cool and Calm" track.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is what Schewe said:
Layered Tiffs (since Photoshop CS at least) using the TIFF-6 spec can save -EVERYTHING- a PSD file can save including layers, channels, paths, transparecy, etc. The only limitation to TIFF-6 is a max file size of 4 gigs/file...but it can save out images larger than the 30,000 limits of PSD files.
For larger images, the only format is PSB files that can store up to 300,000 pixels.
Layered Tiffs may not be supported by -ALL- tiff readers (although recent ones should) and some of the compression options such as zip compression may not be compatible with 3rd part tiff readers (such as ImagePrint) but -THEY- should be encouraged to fix that!
-
My own personal workflow -
1) RAW for exposure/colour corrections and such using Lightroom
2) PSD (as intermediate file if layers are needed for compositing, radical manipulation, repair and the like)
3) flattened TIF file for final product for client/printing - sometimes delivered as RGB, sometimes as CMYK - depending on end use of the image... often low res jpgs are produced from this tif file as well for client quick reference.
Flat TIF files (no layers) are readable by any page layout application being used. Layered TIF files are also readable now by most. PSD files are readable more and more by design/layout applications (I'm not talking about MS Word - that's not a layout app - that's a virus) like Adobe InDesign and Quark Xpress. When sending files to offset print, you're best to replace the PSD files with flat TIFs so your output service provider/print house won't hate you for clogging up their RIP with massive files. A flat LZW compressed TIF file will save you a whole lot of ftp bandwidth and time.
-
I'm curious: Why used PSDs at all? Why not just layered TIFFs, flattened when needed?
-
I'm curious: Why used PSDs at all? Why not just layered TIFFs, flattened when needed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no reason. TIFF has all the necessary features and is a tad smaller using compression.
-
Adobe-credited Photoshop teachers in NYC insist that PSD's are the most efficient way to accommodate increased file sizes, making them perfect for retouching. In other words, PSD files remain slightly smaller than TIFFs as you build layers. TIFF is the preferred print file and I was taught to convert to TIFF just prior to printing. Retouching on TIFF, which is perfectly doable, is not the most efficient method. Has something changed or is this thinking myth?
-
Adobe-credited Photoshop teachers in NYC insist that PSD's are the most efficient way to accommodate increased file sizes, making them perfect for retouching. In other words, PSD files remain slightly smaller than TIFFs as you build layers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Adobe-credited Photoshop teachers in NYC are going to have to argue with, among others, Jeff Schewe about this! They don't want to go there.
A Layered TIFF will actually be a tad smaller than a PSD. This is using the backwards compatibility option which is a must in either format IF you share files with others.
-
There is no reason that a TIFF would be preferred over a PSD (or the other way around) for the purposes of printing. The information contained in both is exactly the same, so the printed result would be exactly the same.
For similar reasons, there is no advantage -- in terms of capability -- for retouching/editing for one format over the other.
There may be some differences in file sizes, but frankly I don't see it as a big deal given today's storage options.
-
There is no reason. TIFF has all the necessary features and is a tad smaller using compression.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Andrew. That confirms what I had vaguely understood. TIFF just seems like such a nice, almost all-purpose format once you convert from RAW.
-
There is no reason that a TIFF would be preferred over a PSD (or the other way around)...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.
TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.
TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.
TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?
PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.
Getting back to the fist point, 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 (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.
And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.
Look, I'll make it REAL simple...
TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad
Ok?
-
So, BMP's are out?
-
PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite.
And in all fairness to my NYC teachers, I haven't been in a classroom since CS entered the scene.
Thank you, Jeff, for taking the time to offer clear perspective, as always. I realize repeating yourself a million times can be a pain but it's difficult for many of us to stay current on every detail, especially if one is busy working and living life. The changes, they are aplenty.
I'm delighted to change my workflow, thanks to your post. I always thought saving PSD and TIFF files of the same image was a waste of storage space. I'll be retouching in TIFF from now on.
-
Well, I hate to disagree with most everyone here, but there's more than one really good reason to use the PSD format.
If you're doing layout work with an application like Adobe InDesign... the application will see TRANSPARENCY that you have included in the PSD file... but not in a TIF file.
For example... if you've close cut an image on a plain background and want a graduated shadow that will fade out over a background colour or another image in your layout... you can do that with a PSD file, but not with a TIF. You would need to compose the entire page in Photoshop if you wanted to use TIF files. Not so with InDesign and the PSD format.
You are also able to turn layers in a PSD file on and off from within InDesign, allowing you to use one file that may have many variations, in the same layout. A very useful function and a major time saver.
Now if those Adobe engineers were able to add this functionality to TIF format, then sure, I'd stick with just one, but for now, PSD is a regular and important part of my image and design work.. if it wasn't the same for others, I think Adobe would have dropped it a long time ago. The flow of file types between the various applications is one of the strongest features of the Adobe Creative Suite. The time saving that it creates is amazing.
It all depends on what you're doing with your imagery... that's how you can decide to use PSD or layered TIFS... they each have their advantages. If you're in a closed loop where you're not doing anything with your images but printing from Photoshop or some other imaging app, then there's no need for PSD... use TIFs all you want and you'll be perfectly content.
There's no right or wrong.
-
I use Bibble Pro, shoot RAW with Canon 40D.
For Bibble it have a choice of Tiff 8-bit or 16-bit, which one should I chose and what's the different.
Thank you for your advise.
-
For Bibble it have a choice of Tiff 8-bit or 16-bit, which one should I chose and what's the different.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=150666\")
[a href=\"http://staging.digitalphotopro.com/tech/the-bit-depth-decision.html]http://staging.digitalphotopro.com/tech/th...h-decision.html[/url]
-
Okay, I get the argument (brisk discussion) for using layered tiff instead of PSD formats to save my PS files.
One question though. You are presented the option of uncompressed or compressed files when you save a tiff in PS. Which option is best that provides the smallest files size AND no degrading of the quality?
Thanks.
Bud James
-
Okay, I get the argument (brisk discussion) for using layered tiff instead of PSD formats to save my PS files.
One question though. You are presented the option of uncompressed or compressed files when you save a tiff in PS. Which option is best that provides the smallest files size AND no degrading of the quality?
Thanks.
Bud James
I always used to use Un compressed TFF but after many researches, supposedly LZ is Lossless compression. I currently use LZ as it lowers the file size quite a bit and I have never seen any difference.
Snook
-
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.
TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.
TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.
TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?
PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.
Getting back to the fist point, 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 (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.
And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.
Look, I'll make it REAL simple...
TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad
Ok?
Thanks for that, Jeff! This is something I get asked all the time... never had any real understanding of the differences.
-
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.
TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.
TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.
TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?
PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.
Getting back to the fist point, 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 (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.
And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.
Look, I'll make it REAL simple...
TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad
Ok?
So, if saving as tiff, what option is recommended: LZW or ZIP compression?
Jonathan
-
Well, I hate to disagree with most everyone here, but there's more than one really good reason to use the PSD format.
If you're doing layout work with an application like Adobe InDesign... the application will see TRANSPARENCY that you have included in the PSD file... but not in a TIF file.
For example... if you've close cut an image on a plain background and want a graduated shadow that will fade out over a background colour or another image in your layout... you can do that with a PSD file, but not with a TIF. You would need to compose the entire page in Photoshop if you wanted to use TIF files. Not so with InDesign and the PSD format.
You are also able to turn layers in a PSD file on and off from within InDesign, allowing you to use one file that may have many variations, in the same layout. A very useful function and a major time saver.
Now if those Adobe engineers were able to add this functionality to TIF format, then sure, I'd stick with just one, but for now, PSD is a regular and important part of my image and design work.. if it wasn't the same for others, I think Adobe would have dropped it a long time ago. The flow of file types between the various applications is one of the strongest features of the Adobe Creative Suite. The time saving that it creates is amazing.
It all depends on what you're doing with your imagery... that's how you can decide to use PSD or layered TIFS... they each have their advantages. If you're in a closed loop where you're not doing anything with your images but printing from Photoshop or some other imaging app, then there's no need for PSD... use TIFs all you want and you'll be perfectly content.
There's no right or wrong.
It may make sense if your using a number of Adobe applications for processing, but for many of us it's more a case of backing up in the best format for long term safety, for this I would TIFF (and keep the originals) As Jeff says Adobe could pull the plug any time, then in a few years it could be hard going to find anything to open the PSD's. Wayne
-
It may make sense if your using a number of Adobe applications for processing, but for many of us it's more a case of backing up in the best format for long term safety, for this I would TIFF (and keep the originals) As Jeff says Adobe could pull the plug any time, then in a few years it could be hard going to find anything to open the PSD's. Wayne
In the 'save as' dialogue for tif, which image compression is recommended: LZW or ZIP and for layer compression: ZIP or RLE?
Thanks
Jonathan
-
Jeff,
Based on your latest comments regarding TIFF vs PSD would it make sense to convert all my PSD files to TIFF?
Gene vrs
-
I think the OP was asking about TIFF vs. JPG. Not sure how PSD got involved here.
Although others on here can give you a more complete answer, in short, converting to TIFF from a captured and corrected RAW file (edit instructions saved in sidecar XMP file) will result in the most complete picture file.
On the other hand, converting to JPG, from the same RAW file will result in a picture file that is in a reduced quality state. Even the first JPG conversion is a lossy process where picture quality is permanently loss.
So to print an image, a TIFF conversion is of higher quality than a JPG conversion (from the same RAW file) - which would result in the best possible print. Layers and other goodies just sweeten the deal with TIFF.
JPG is really a convenience file type for email, PowerPoint, etc. due to its smaller file size.
Tiff= Best possible image, but a larger file size.
JPG= Lossy, reduced image quality, but very useful in file sharing or when file size is a factor.
-
Based on your latest comments regarding TIFF vs PSD would it make sense to convert all my PSD files to TIFF?
For long term preservation and conservation, yes...do you need to do this immediately? Prolly not...I would just cut down on the use of PSD unless you have a specific need...
-
For long term preservation and conservation, yes...do you need to do this immediately? Prolly not...I would just cut down on the use of PSD unless you have a specific need...
Jeff,
Thanks
Gene
-
I've found an issue with using TIFF instead of PSD. When I save as TIFF, Photoshop does not preserve the GPS data in my images. Saving as PSD does.
-
Jeff Schewe wrote the words below about the advantages of TIFF over PSD two and a half years ago, in August 2007. We've gone through a whole new version of Photoshop since then, and I assume revisions of TIFF and the PSD standard, as well as changes to the third party apps that can read those formats.
Jeff -- how about an update? Is TIFF still preferred? For the same reasons?
-=-Joe
Wrong...PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.
TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.
TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.
TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?
PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.
Getting back to the fist point, 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 (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.
And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.
Look, I'll make it REAL simple...
TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad
Ok?
-
Jeff Schewe wrote the words below about the advantages of TIFF over PSD two and a half years ago, in August 2007.
Jeff -- how about an update? Is TIFF still preferred? For the same reasons?
TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.
-=-Joe
Tiff files file are not limited to just zip compression and can have many different flavors of compression, including jpeg compressed data within a tiff file!
-
FWITW, I use PSD as a simple indicator that the file is a work in progress... TIFF is reserved for a final product/file.
-
... Some of the image management programs can print from RAW, so I may avoid conversions and the associated overhead for versioning and storage in at least some cases.
...
I think you may run into some issues here.
If you do your RAW editing in ACR or DPP, then try to import that RAW file into a printing tool like Qimage, I am fairly certain that your RAW edits would NOT be applied to your print. DPP saves the RAW edits to a proprietary metadata portion of the CR2 file (nikon has an equivalent, I think). ACR saves the RAW edits to an proprietary XMP sidecar file. Qimage may not be able to read and render all the edits that are applied in a different tool. The same is true for panoramic stitching tools that claim to read RAW files. They do, but they don't apply any edits to the files. The files are rendered "as shot."
TIFF is the best format for interchange between tools (unless your entire workflow remains within Adobe Creative Suite, for example). I have begun saving all my final work in TIFF format.
-
Is TIFF still preferred? For the same reasons?
Yep...nothing has fundamentally changed in Photoshop CS4 nor Lightroom 2.x nor 3 beta.
-
Yep...nothing has fundamentally changed in Photoshop CS4 nor Lightroom 2.x nor 3 beta.
Thank you, Jeff.
-
"Why use TIFF??"
I’m currently revisiting a couple of old PCD files (Kodak Photo CD).
My first one is dated 1992. It is getting increasing difficult to open this file format.
Now, I’m saving the native conversion to TIFF for long term safety.
Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, I could imagine to do the same with the Raw files of earlier cameras,
after DPP legacy conversion, and/or after conversion with ACR/LR, thus to burn the parametric editing into TIFFs.
We always expect that newer software is better, but sometimes things are getting lost.
Peter
--
-
I’m currently revisiting a couple of old PCD files (Kodak Photo CD).
My first one is dated 1992. It is getting increasing difficult to open this file format.
Yep, this is typical of orphaned tech...Kodak has quit reving the software for importing Photo CD images (actually since Photoshop CS2 I think) so if you want to open those old Photo CDs, you better keep an old G4 or G5 with Tiger on it with Photoshop CS or CS2 to access the image packs...
-
Yep, this is typical of orphaned tech...Kodak has quit reving the software for importing Photo CD images (actually since Photoshop CS2 I think) so if you want to open those old Photo CDs, you better keep an old G4 or G5 with Tiger on it with Photoshop CS or CS2 to access the image packs...
Actually it was/ is still possible to copy the Photo CD.8BI plug-in from an earlier Photoshop version into the CS4 Plug-ins/ File Formats folder, thus to open the PCD files in CS4. No 64 bit support though (Windowz). The option to edit the resulting TIFFs through Bridge + ACR is a real gem.
… just in case someone around here struggles with the same issue.
Peter
--
-
Actually it was/ is still possible to copy the Photo CD.8BI plug-in from an earlier Photoshop version into the CS4 Plug-ins/ File Formats folder, thus to open the PCD files in CS4.
On Windows yes...not on Mac because Kodak never did a UB version of the import plug-in under Mac. That's why support ended as of Photoshop CS2. Photoshop CS3 required a recompile of all Mac plug-ins from Codewarrior to Xcode. Something Kodak decided not to do.
-
This is an old thread, but I need to add the most eyecatching difference (with Windows at least) - PSD files show up as the PSD icon, TIFF files as thumbnails, i.e. my TIFFs are recognizable.
-
If you go to the trouble of creating a clipping path using the pen tool and save the file as a tiff the moment you import that tiff into LR the clipping path is gone.
Trying to open the file directly into PS for some reason opens the file via ACR. The file will then open with the path stripped out. Opening the file from within LR either as a copy or as the original either with or without LR edits has the same result. No path in PS. It is stripped out.
I do a truck load of catalogue photography. I know zip about design but the designers I work with insiston a clipping path. My workflow is create clipping path, drop out background, colour correct, fix product by removing various blemishes and dust spots and so on. The many jobs in progress are held n a LR catalogue. I use PS format because it's kind of useless to use tiff if LR causes the clipping path to be stripped out when I visit PS as I must to do retouching.
-
If you go to the trouble of creating a clipping path using the pen tool and save the file as a tiff the moment you import that tiff into LR the clipping path is gone.
Works on this end (Mac) using the latest version of LR6. I just created a clipping path with a fill, I see it in LR after import IF that's what you're referring to.
Trying to open the file directly into PS for some reason opens the file via ACR.
Again, not on this end, the TIFF opens in Photoshop proper. Maybe you edited the TIFF in ACR in the past? Check your ACR preferences in Photoshop (TIFF and JPEG handling).
-
Of course, the one place where tiff still doesn't work is when you're doing a real honest to goodness Duotone, Tritone or Quadtone, in which case there are about five options, psb and psd being the two best for most applications. Maybe the default file format should really be psb instead. That pesky 4gb limit on tiff is getting in the way more and more these days anyway.
-
Works on this end (Mac) using the latest version of LR6. I just created a clipping path with a fill, I see it in LR after import IF that's what you're referring to.
Again, not on this end, the TIFF opens in Photoshop proper. Maybe you edited the TIFF in ACR in the past? Check your ACR preferences in Photoshop (TIFF and JPEG handling).
Thanks for looking into it but not exactly what I meant. Being able to see the fill I mean. I open a tiff file from within LR into PS. I create a path and drop out the background. I save the file and it is automatically added into my LR cat which is then in a stack with the original. I can see the background is now white but when Iopen the file again in PS the clipping path is missing from the paths palette.
If I have a tiff that has never been in LR but only worked on in PS simply importing it into LR now forces the file to open via ACR and once open in PS the path is now gone.
Working on a Mac Pro with the latest OS. Adobe CC 2015. Everything up to date.
-
Thanks for looking into it but not exactly what I meant. Being able to see the fill I mean.
I see on my end.
AFAIK, there's nothing LR is or can do to 'remove' the path simply but cataloging the document. Now IF you edit the original, FROM LR, that's a different possible story. But the original image with a Path, cataloged in LR remains and further, no such issue with ACR.
-
Of course, the one place where tiff still doesn't work is when you're doing a real honest to goodness Duotone, Tritone or Quadtone, in which case there are about five options, psb and psd being the two best for most applications. Maybe the default file format should really be psb instead. That pesky 4gb limit on tiff is getting in the way more and more these days anyway.
Yes, assuming you're using the old Duotone, Tritone or Quadtone, TIFF doesn't work despite my plea to Adobe to support that. I suspect very, very few people today use Duotone, Tritone or Quadtone...
As for size, the TIFF and PSD limitations are AFAIK, the same hence PSB.
-
"I suspect very, very few people today use Duotone, Tritone or Quadtone...
As for size, the TIFF and PSD limitations are AFAIK"
You see duotones, etc. in higher end printing when designers want a certain look, and while they may not be used as much, it's something that is still done more often than you might think. It's definitely an art to getting it right but when you do, it really does look great. And just because it's a feature that might not be in wide use or one that the current crop of designer know little about doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported.
As far as size limitations, they are not the same. psd has a 2 gb limit while tiff has double that - a 4 gb limit, further making tiff the preferred file type as so many files exceed 2 gb these days - well, at least here they do.
-
Use TIF in general as in the long term it's better supported. But stick to PSD if you absolutely need the Duotone image mode (most split toning doesn't), if you want to use the file as a Displacement Map, or if you want any transparency to be visible in InDesign. There's one other reason that's slipped my mind, but it's equally obscure.
-
You see duotones, etc. in higher end printing when designers want a certain look, and while they may not be used as much, it's something that is still done more often than you might think.
Well they can appear to be duotones but can actually RGB data right? I'm referring to actual duotones built as such in Photoshop proper and yes, those don't work as TIFFs. Adobe can and should fix that.
As far as size limitations, they are not the same. psd has a 2 gb limit while tiff has double that - a 4 gb limit, further making tiff the preferred file type as so many files exceed 2 gb these days - well, at least here they do.
Even better (for TIFF).
According to Chris Cox at Adobe:
PSD files are limited to 2 Gig because of the file format design and compatibility with other applications. That really cannot be changed. That's why we created the PSB format, to allow for much larger files (in pixel dimension and total file size).
-
"Well they can appear to be duotones but can actually RGB data right? I'm referring to actual duotones built as such in Photoshop proper and yes, those don't work as TIFFs. Adobe can and should fix that. "
You can only make a true Duotone from a Grayscale file. That would be one Grayscale for the base and a second channel for the second ink. And so on for any additional channels you might want. A true duotone or tritone looks way better on press than a simulated version in CMYK, but it is more work.
I'm pretty sure that the psd file size limit probably came from the old file size limit in the older (Mac 9.2.2 for example) operating systems which had a hard limit of 2 gb per file. There was no point in having a limit in the file format that was larger than the OS could handle. ALL apps back then were limited to 2 gb or smaller, which is the reason I still have to scan some pieces of film in two chunks.
-
You can only make a true Duotone from a Grayscale file. That would be one Grayscale for the base and a second channel for the second ink. And so on for any additional channels you might want. A true duotone or tritone looks way better on press than a simulated version in CMYK, but it is more work.
Right but you could create what appears to be a duotone or similarly, a quadtone with an RGB file right? You don't have to specifically create a duotone or quadtone using the Photoshop process which forces a PSD at save?
I'm pretty sure that the psd file size limit probably came from the old file size limit in the older (Mac 9.2.2 for example) operating systems which had a hard limit of 2 gb per file.
Then what about TIFF which is as old if not older?
-
If I have a tiff that has never been in LR but only worked on in PS simply importing it into LR now forces the file to open via ACR and once open in PS the path is now gone.
That's not correct. I work a lot with PS, LR and paths. Your problem is in having your file open in ACR on the way to PS.
Go into your ACR preferences and turn off support for JPEG's and TIF's so that your files open directly into PS. It is ACR that is stripping your paths, not LR.
(And feel free to turn on ACR support again for files without paths, and off again for those with. Wax on, wax off...)