Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: fike on May 09, 2013, 03:02:16 pm

Title: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 09, 2013, 03:02:16 pm
In light of all the drama relating to Adobe CC, I have been thinking about moving more of my work into TIFF format.  What does everyone else think about that?

Why do I want to do that?  The thing that bugs me most about CC is the fact that after I stop paying my subscription, I may no longer be able to access MY existing photo files (PSD).  If I stop using PSD/PSB and make everything TIFF, I can be more confident that someone will support it.

...and don't get me started on DNG.  Though I don't use it, I have always liked the IDEA of DNG, but it's dead to me now.

Sorry if this has been discussed in the other screaming-crazy thread about CC, but I wasn't ever going to get through 29 pages of forum postings and diatribes.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: digitaldog on May 09, 2013, 03:09:31 pm
In light of all the drama relating to Adobe CC, I have been thinking about moving more of my work into TIFF format.  What does everyone else think about that?

Yes, you should! Unless you've got huge files over 4 Gigs, in which you'll need PSB. Otherwise, TIFF provides everything you need (OK, no duotone support), provides everything PSD does while being an open format that far more software app's can support.

Quote
...and don't get me started on DNG.
OK. But it's a TIFF variant too.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Schewe on May 09, 2013, 09:12:27 pm
In light of all the drama relating to Adobe CC, I have been thinking about moving more of my work into TIFF format.  What does everyone else think about that?

Hum...guess who owns the TIFF file format?

If what you are interested in is an anti-Adobe crusade, use JPEG....

Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: texshooter on May 09, 2013, 09:23:31 pm
Aren't there converters that can convert practically any format to any format? if so, your back is covered. And Why is TIFF better than DNG?
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: chichornio on May 09, 2013, 09:42:45 pm
Uncompressed Tiff, 16 bits, win or mac, it`s the only way to go. SSD storage is going to be cheaper every year.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 09, 2013, 10:15:46 pm
I hadn't noticed that tiff format was now owned by adobe. Bummer. They could flex some anti-competitive muscle if they wanted.

I'm not looking for alternatives as a way to be anti-adobe. My real intention is to future-proof myself so that if a day comes when I can no longer get PS for some reason, I can use alternatives.

Why no DNG for me?  I do panoramas and composite images. I don't think these can be saved as DNG.

Why no jpegs....they are not suitable because they are a lossy format, of course.

No, I'm not really mad at Adobe. They are a business and their job is to make as much money as possible. I am no more angry at Adobe than I would be at a lion eating a gazelle. It's in their nature. That doesn't mean I want to plan or trust that lion as a long-term business partner though. I will be watching for alternatives while I pay my subscription fee.

Now, what format should I use if something else does turn up? Tiff still seems the best bet.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Alan Klein on May 09, 2013, 11:06:36 pm
I think I'm going to scan documents into jpeg rather than pdf going forward.  Who knows about what Adobe will do there too?  Also, what about Bitmap .BMP.  I think that's the same pixel quantity as TIff and non-protected?  WOuldn't filing in bmp be the same as tiff?
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Colorwave on May 09, 2013, 11:59:21 pm
Uncompressed Tiff, 16 bits, win or mac, it`s the only way to go. SSD storage is going to be cheaper every year.

Out of curiosity, why is LZW compression to be avoided?
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 12:31:59 am
Out of curiosity, why is LZW compression to be avoided?

If you are working on 16 bit files, LZW compression will often (usually) result in a saved file that is larger that no compression at all. For 16 bit file, zip compression is the only useful compression scheme, for 8 bit files LZW is fine.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 01:17:08 am
Hum...guess who owns the TIFF file format?

?  "Tagged Image File Format (http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/tiff/index.html) is one of the most popular and flexible of the current public domain raster file formats."
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 01:34:53 am
?  "Tagged Image File Format (http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/tiff/index.html) is one of the most popular and flexible of the current public domain raster file formats."

While TIFF-6 is in essence "public domain" because it's publicly documented and freely usable for no fees from Adobe, Adobe still "owns" the TIFF specification–meaning Adobe is free to work on a TIFF-7 spec.

Ironically, Adobe has granted to the ISO the right to use TIFF-6 on the TIFF-EP raw file format that is used as a basis for proprietary raw file specs. Adobe has also offered DNG as a standard to the ISO for the next rev of TIFF-EP which should (if/when it happens) make adoption a bit easier to swallow for the camera companies...
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Fine_Art on May 10, 2013, 01:46:57 am
You might want to look into software that supports fits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FITS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FITS)
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Mark Songhurst on May 10, 2013, 02:01:39 am
PDF is an ISO standard now.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 10, 2013, 04:27:40 am
Hum...guess who owns the TIFF file format?

If what you are interested in is an anti-Adobe crusade, use JPEG....

Hi Jeff,

You do not seem to understand the OP's issue. PSD is a proprietary Photoshop file format. TIFF is well documented, and source code is freely available (http://www.libtiff.org/), for creating input/output libraries that allow to read and write these types of files from various software applications.

I think, to answer the OP's question, TIFF would be a better alternative, especially because it allows to store a full Works-in-Progress layered version of your images. There may be some limitations as to maximum file size (2GB or 4GB depending on library used), but work is underway to create a Big-TIFF file format that doesn't have these pointer address issues.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 05:58:52 am
You do not seem to understand the OP's issue. PSD is a proprietary Photoshop file format. TIFF is well documented, and source code is freely available (http://www.libtiff.org/), for creating input/output libraries that allow to read and write these types of files from various software applications.

Oh, I'm aware all right...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 that I explained that even the Photoshop engineers have indicated that the PSD is not really an optimal native file format for Photoshop :~)

YMMV...
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Alan Klein on May 11, 2013, 12:36:35 am
What about .bmp?
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Chris Pollock on May 11, 2013, 04:37:53 am
No, I'm not really mad at Adobe. They are a business and their job is to make as much money as possible. I am no more angry at Adobe than I would be at a lion eating a gazelle. It's in their nature. That doesn't mean I want to plan or trust that lion as a long-term business partner though. I will be watching for alternatives while I pay my subscription fee.
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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: 32BT on May 11, 2013, 04:51:17 am
They are a business and their job is to make as much money as possible.

This would be a really bad objective for any company. The maximum amount of money = all the money in the world. So, once they aggregated all the money in the world, then what?

You can trust a lion to kill and eat a gazelle every now and then. And they should. But it certainly becomes a problem if the lion starts to kill 2 gazelles, and eat only one. I find that a rather appropriate analogy for what is happening currently...

Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 11, 2013, 08:29:37 am
What about .bmp?

BMP has very large file sizes and no compression (lossless of course). Also, I'm not sure if BMP supports adjustment layers.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 11, 2013, 08:30:49 am
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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Alan Klein on May 11, 2013, 09:38:27 am
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?
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 11, 2013, 11:30:16 am
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
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: digitaldog on May 11, 2013, 11:35:04 am
BMP doesn't support layers. I use adjustment layers extensively.

Or 16-bit data it appears. Worthless!
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 11, 2013, 12:28:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Dave Gurtcheff on May 11, 2013, 03:40:14 pm
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
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Isaac on May 12, 2013, 12:38:38 pm
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."
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Dave Gurtcheff on May 12, 2013, 10:08:49 pm
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
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 13, 2013, 11:45:44 am
...

(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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: texshooter on May 13, 2013, 09:08:52 pm

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?
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 13, 2013, 09:40:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: DeanChriss on May 13, 2013, 09:45:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 14, 2013, 07:52:12 am
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.


Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 14, 2013, 07:54:24 am
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 (http://www.pl32.com) 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
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: nemophoto on May 14, 2013, 11:34:55 am
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
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 14, 2013, 11:46:26 am
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
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Sareesh Sudhakaran on May 14, 2013, 11:56:47 am
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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: DeanChriss on May 14, 2013, 11:58:36 am
Marc and Bart – Thanks!
Information like this is exactly what I was looking for. I’ve been using Photoshop since about 1997 and haven’t seriously looked at alternatives until now. While I know little about some of the software you’ve mentioned it turns out I’ve 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 that’s organized by both date and place, with separate folders for processed files that are organized the same way. I’ve used Breeze Browser for image browsing since it came on the market. It has a small footprint, is fast, inexpensive, and doesn’t create any proprietary databases. I’ve never felt any need for Adobe Bridge and essentially haven’t used it even though I’ve 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 Canon’s 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 I’ve got, and at home for finding files and occasionally for RAW conversion. The RAW converter is very basic but it’s 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 you’re using a supported combination, and in that case I think it can do a fantastic job of capture sharpening (though that’s not what they call it). I don’t 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.

I’ve also used Neat Image in the past and found it to be very good. I stopped using it years ago and haven’t 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. That’s a “must have” 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.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Kirk Gittings on May 14, 2013, 12:00:00 pm
Hi,

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

Cheers,
Bart

because they are more at a level of Elements.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 14, 2013, 12:56:56 pm
I think non-destructive editing with layers and masking is probably adobe's most substantial photoshop innovation that can't easily be replaced. Elements and many of these less sophisticated tools don't have non-destructive editing.

If adobe added non-destructive editing to Elements and enabled me to install all the same plugins, I would probably be able to get by easily...maybe with lightroom on the side for advanced ACR features.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 14, 2013, 01:24:23 pm
because they are more at a level of Elements.

Hi Kirk,

That's odd, certainly from a technical image quality point of view. For example, the scaling quality of Photoline is superior to Photoshop CS6, since it offers Lanczos-3 and Lanczos-8 resampling filters, and they are implemented well, and in 16-bit/channel. This produces much better results when e.g. down-sampling for web-publishing, and virtually all images must be down-sampled to prevent bandwidth issues. That also produces better quality when correcting e.g. keystoning, or other warping/morphing of images.

I've just been tinkering with the selection/masking tools, and they seem to challenge even Photoshop CS6 in ease of use and quality.

It is possible to set the display resolution in order to preview output at the actual size, a feature recently removed from Photoshop CS6 Cloud version, don't know if Elements still offers it.

Of course one can proof output, fully color-managed obviously (16-bit/channel also helps to avoid the need to dither when converting between Colorspaces).

EXR and PDF files are supported.

And there are probably others I have yet to try. I'm genuinely impressed by what it can do.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: DeanChriss on May 14, 2013, 01:30:47 pm
I think non-destructive editing with layers and masking is probably adobe's most substantial photoshop innovation that can't easily be replaced. Elements and many of these less sophisticated tools don't have non-destructive editing.

If adobe added non-destructive editing to Elements and enabled me to install all the same plugins, I would probably be able to get by easily...maybe with lightroom on the side for advanced ACR features.

I don't use LR or Elements, but I understand neither has soft proofing, which IMO is a requirement for printing. I know Qimage has soft proofing. I used a trial version several years ago but found it to be on pretty tedious/cumbersome. I see there's a new incarnation available so perhaps it's time for another try.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: fike on May 14, 2013, 02:34:36 pm
I don't use LR or Elements, but I understand neither has soft proofing, which IMO is a requirement for printing. I know Qimage has soft proofing. I used a trial version several years ago but found it to be on pretty tedious/cumbersome. I see there's a new incarnation available so perhaps it's time for another try.

Qimage is still quirky, but it works very well.  Once you learn how to use it, it is more efficient than PS.  I can see how you found it tedious though.

Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: DeanChriss on May 14, 2013, 03:26:39 pm
Google finds -- Using Photoshop Lightroom 4 / Developing photos / Soft-proof images (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS2bacbdf8d487e582-5591e4a41341ae6cc6d-8000.html)

Not what you're looking for?

Actually that's it. I obviously haven't looked into LR for a long time. Thanks!
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: mouse on May 14, 2013, 06:37:53 pm
I think, to answer the OP's question, TIFF would be a better alternative, especially because it allows to store a full Works-in-Progress layered version of your images.
Cheers,
Bart

If my understanding is correct, "a full Works-in-Progress layered version" produced by PS could not be opened and further processed by any editing software other than PS.  A flattened version could, presumably, be opened by other editing software.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
Post by: digitaldog on May 14, 2013, 07:01:49 pm
If my understanding is correct, "a full Works-in-Progress layered version" produced by PS could not be opened and further processed by any editing software other than PS.  A flattened version could, presumably, be opened by other editing software.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct!