Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: rasterdogs on May 30, 2013, 10:38:58 am
-
Given the Adobe CS in the cloud developments this is timely.
From The Online Photographer (http://heonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/05/psds-and-permanence.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FZSjz+%28The+Online+Photographer%29) blog.
-
The URL underlying your hot link seems to be missing a "t" right at the front of the string, which prevents it from working. At least did so on my computer. You may wish to verify.
-
One of the obvious methods of archivally future-proofing your collection is to print your work on archivally stable media and put it in an organized and carefully stored collection. Future generations won't keep your hard drives or DVDs or whatever. Printing ensures you have a real copy.
-
I agree with this; one will still be able to enjoy photographs printed on paper long after all this technology we are now using has gone the way of the Dodo bird. But these days a great many people are no longer printing. Ctein's solution still makes sense as a safety measure usable over the medium term future.
-
I was thinking about this article from Ctein's website. It has been very influential in my thinking.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/eight-ways-to-preserve-your-pictures.html
-
The URL underlying your hot link seems to be missing a "t" right at the front of the string, which prevents it from working. At least did so on my computer. You may wish to verify.
This should do it:
Ctein on PSD's (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)
-
Here is the take on archival file formats from the dpbestflow folks (American Society of Media Photogrpahers, for the Library of Congress)
http://dpbestflow.org/node/371
kirk
-
Here is the take on archival file formats from the dpbestflow folks (American Society of Media Photogrpahers, for the Library of Congress)
http://dpbestflow.org/node/371
kirk
I found that to be an interesting article.
-
I've been saying pretty much the same thing about PSD files for years...this is my now somewhat famous (or infamous) response to a question of whether PDS or TIFF was a better file format...Why Use Tiff? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.msg134830#msg134830)
-
I've been saying pretty much the same thing about PSD files for years...this is my now somewhat famous (or infamous) response to a question of whether PDS or TIFF was a better file format...Why Use Tiff? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.msg134830#msg134830)
I've been listening to the Gospel according to Jeff Schewe long enough that I have never knowingly saved anything as a PSD.
Yet I still see frequent posts on LuLa from people worrying about the state of their PSDs.
I have a question for anybody willing to answer it: Why does anybody in this day and age use PSDs?
Bewildered,
Eric M.
-
I've been listening to the Gospel according to Jeff Schewe long enough that I have never knowingly saved anything as a PSD.
Yet I still see frequent posts on LuLa from people worrying about the state of their PSDs.
I have a question for anybody willing to answer it: Why does anybody in this day and age use PSDs?
Bewildered,
Eric M.
The only reason why I occasionally use a psd file is by mistake. When I discover the mistake, I reopen, resave as a tiff and delete the psd file. The info in the thread that Jeff linked to above killed psd use for me.
-
I was thinking about this article from Ctein's website. It has been very influential in my thinking.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/06/eight-ways-to-preserve-your-pictures.html
To be clear, this is Mike Johnston's website, for which Ctein is a regular guest blogger. The post linked to is written by Johnston, not Ctein. Now carry on! :)
-
To be clear, this is Mike Johnston's website, for which Ctein is a regular guest blogger. The post linked to is written by Johnston, not Ctein. Now carry on! :)
Oh yeah?
"This week's column by Ctein"
"©2013 by Ctein, all rights reserved"
-
Is there anything in Adobes license forbidding me from setting up a webserver that accepts PSD files and returns tiff files (running a regular Adobe CC app)?
-h
-
Why use Tiff? No reason not to. But I haven't given up on PSD quite yet. Because:
-big 16-bit PSD files open and save much faster than Zip Tiffs. (Granted, I haven't tested this in a while, but when I did the difference was significant.) With the fast processors and gobs of RAM available these days, the opening and saving of files has become, by elimination, my biggest processing bottleneck.
-when I see a PSD file in a folder on my computer, I know that it's the main, full resolution, working version of a photo. Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of the format. It's just part of a system that evolved as an easy shorthand for my purposes. (Raw files in one folder called, aptly, "Raw." PSD working files in another folder called, "PSD." Final TIFFs for delivery in a third folder called, "to deliver.")
-when the Photoshop apocalypse is imminent, I'll do what Ctein suggests. Until then, I'm not sure there's a big hurry. When I installed Lightroom, I had to re-save all my "un-maximized" Photoshop files to satisfy its limitations, and that was a frustrating pain in the neck, but I got through it. Now I have Lightroom itself, and other tools, to make the job pretty easy.
Long story short, I don't think file format choice has to be an all-or-nothing decision, and not one I have to make today.
-
Oh yeah?
"This week's column by Ctein"
"©2013 by Ctein, all rights reserved"
I meant the article linked to by fike and quoted in my post.
Love your puerile response, by the way.
-
Not puerile, just misguided. ;)
-
Yikes! So I have to admit, I got a lot of PSD's. Does someone have an action or something to convert them to TIFF's?
-
Photoshop's image Processor can be fast and easy: Open folder of psds in Bridge. Select all or desired psd files to be saved as tiff files. Then: Tools > Photoshop > Image Processor. Check 'Save as TIFF' under File Type in the Image Processor dialog box, also check Include ICC profile under Preferences.(assuming you want this). Decide where to save tiffs -- if you select 'Save in Same Location' a folder named TIFF will be created and tiffs saved there.
-
I presume these do not replace the PSDs, but simply add the new files?
-
I'd rather just replace all PSD's as layered tiff's. I will need to get more storage if I'm to make a tiff from every psd file.
-
I'd rather just replace all PSD's as layered tiff's. I will need to get more storage if I'm to make a tiff from every psd file.
That would be my preference too. My question is whether the Image Processor can replace the PSDs, or does one need to manually go into the directory and delete them after the TIFFs are created.
-
Right. You can choose where to save the tiffs in the Image Processor dialog box. Select a specific destination folder, or select 'Save in Same Location' and a subfolder named TIFF will be created under your folder with the psd files and the newly created tiffs will be saved in that subfolder. And while I described a method using Bridge, you can do this from within Photoshop if you want to process an entire folder of files: File > Scripts > Image Processor then select source folder in the Image Processor dialog box.
-
So far as I know you will need to manually delete the psds.
-
That would be my preference too. My question is whether the Image Processor can replace the PSDs, or does one need to manually go into the directory and delete them after the TIFFs are created.
I don't think Image Processor can do so (unless it's automating an action that itself calls a script).
To delete from multiple folders, you could either use Lightroom, or Bridge has View > Show Items from Subfolders.
-
Yikes! So I have to admit, I got a lot of PSD's. Does someone have an action or something to convert them to TIFF's?
Hi,
You can probably use ImageMagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php) to either convert and replace PSDs into TIFFs, or convert PSDs to TIFF duplicates. It can do batch conversions if you use the right command-line instructions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You can probably use ImageMagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php) to either convert and replace PSDs into TIFFs, or convert PSDs to TIFF duplicates. It can do batch conversions if you use the right command-line instructions.
Quite doable in Photoshop with an action then a droplet or using Automate Batch. That's what I did, works like a charm.
-
... I have a question for anybody willing to answer it: Why does anybody in this day and age use PSDs?
I do. Rarely though, given that most of my work never leaves Lightroom.
Why? Why not? If there is no practical difference, then either does fine.
I have some old psd files, from the time when TIFF did not have the same functionality.The main reason, though, is that when I see a psd file on my computer, I know it is mine. There are numerous sources for tiff files however, some downloaded from the internet, some come preloaded with various software.
At some point, in the pre-Lightroom era, I used to use psd to denote work in progress, and tiff as a final product.
And perhaps equally important, I tend to resist mass paranoia and cult following. Just because Tarzan said "tiff-good, psd-bad," doesn't make it so, at least not for everyone, and at least not in the short run. As a side note, and as a nod to another thread, that statement sounds positively Ken Rockwellesque ;)
I also do not fall easily for doomsday scenarios: if psd does become inaccessible at some point in the future, I will convert before that. Do not trouble the trouble until the trouble troubles you.
-
And perhaps equally important, I tend to resist mass paranoia and cult following. Just because Tarzan said "tiff-good, psd-bad," doesn't make it so, at least not for everyone, and at least not in the short run. As a side note, and as a nod to another thread, that statement sounds positively Ken Rockwellesque ;)
Yeah, except Tarzan's point of view came from direct discussion with Photoshop engineers and a knowledge of both the PSD and TIFF specs. Given the way people are reacting to the CC, more interest has now developed in avoiding vender lock-in and TIFF is publicly documented and adopted by the ISO. PSD? Not so much...loo bud, you are welcome to use whatever you want...as long as you understand the full ramifications. The fact that many people assume PSD is the "native Photoshop format" and therefore "better" to use was the point of my "Ken Rockwellesque" statements. And at least I have the benefit of being technically correct.
-
Jeff, do not lose your sense of humor, man!
Come to think of it, my post is probably equally Ken Rockwellesque ;)
-
Slobodan,
I readily admit that I, too, have PSDs floating around on my PC. They date from my earliest days with PS, when I naively used "Save As" with the default format (PSD).
Since then, as I have gained some of the Wisdom of the Sages (Tarzan, Jeff, Michael, among others), I have used only TIFFs (or JPEGs when needed for the Web). There have been a few times when I have needed some of the images that were saved as PSDs, and it turned out that those times required some sort of submission as TIFFs, so I had to go into PS and save new versions.
My personal conclusion: PSD => nuisance (eventually, if not right away), while TIFF => OK for the foreseeable future.
As for your comparison of KenR to the Onion in that other thread, I must object. You are absolutely right on about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Fox News, but I find the Onion to provide frequent chuckles in almost every paragraph, while the few times I've glommed KR's scribblings, the seriously entertaining bits and the reasonably useful bits are few and far between.
Life is too short to spend time on KR's site or on Fox News, IMNSHO.
Eric M.
P.S. For solid news I also rely on Paul Krugman for economic news and Gail Collins for political reality checks, both on the NY Times.
-
Short of support for duotone, what advantage if any is there from a PSD versus a TIFF?
In terms of TIFF advantages over PSD, can anyone suggest that less products can (and will) access a TIFF than PSD?
-
TIFF is great but obsolescence, I think, is a little overblown. Anybody remember wordstar? You can find wordstar file converters, wordstar emulators, and even wordstar program if you want. The information technology is maturing. What happened in its infancy is not necessarily what will happen in future.
More importantly for me though, is ctein's (very valid) argument, that even if future programs can open old files, it is not necessary that they will render that file in the same way. So even though I can open PS7 psd in CS6, the algorithms today are different and it is quite likely that the final rendered output will be different from how I made it in PS7. So keep your archives in TIFF, but flattened tiffs.
-
So even though I can open PS7 psd in CS6, the algorithms today are different and it is quite likely that the final rendered output will be different from how I made it in PS7. So keep your archives in TIFF, but flattened tiffs.
Actually, if the past is any indicator of the future, I don't think you need to worry about that. I've got images that were created starting with Photoshop 2.01 that will open correctly in Photoshop CS6 (and I presume, Photoshop CC). I think opening older versions in newer version isn't the problem. The real problem is opening newer version images in older versions of Photoshop. If in the newer version (such as CC) you save out a file containing CC versions, the ability to edit those images on older versions will be compromised. You should be able to open the images but CC+features will not be editable in older versions. But this is old news that has been an issue to deal with with every new version of Photoshop that is released. Keep things simple and stuff will be backwards compatible except for those features that don't exist in the older versions. Simply pixel layers and most adjustment layers should be no problem. Smart Objects can get dicey...