Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: mouse on February 07, 2014, 02:25:15 pm
-
My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.
The format choices seem to be psd or tiff. Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?
Thanks.
-
My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.
The format choices seem to be psd or tiff. Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?
Thanks.
Schewe had some strong negative words about .PSD ... and to hear that from Schewe about something originating from Adobe means that .PSD is bad ::)
-
PSD is 'bad' as it is a proprietary file format that provides nothing (other than Dutone support) that TIFF, an open format provides. Far, far more applications can read TIFFs, it cost nothing for a software company to include while PSD costs them via licensing. So, if your goal is long term archival storage, TIFF is the way to go.
Schewe has made comments on the Photoshop team's opinion of PSD which I'll let him provide rather than 2nd hand. But the bottom line is, save TIFF if your goal is a format that provides long term and flexible options.
-
My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.
The format choices seem to be psd or tiff. Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?
Not certain that your question has been answered yet. Are you perhaps referring to technical advantages rather than the universal nature of TIFF files?
Just a thought . . .
-
Andrew Rodney is exactly on the money - TIFF is the way to go.
There are no 'technical' advantages between the two.
Tony Jay
-
Andrew Rodney is exactly on the money - TIFF is the way to go.
There are no 'technical' advantages between the two.
Tony Jay
You did miss the one technical advantage of PSD over TIFF and that is saving duotone information.
Personally I save my edited files as PSD because Photoshop is my preferred image editor. When I send a file out for print or publication, it is either TIFF or PDF.
-
Is there a way to batch process/convert PSD's to TIFF's.
-
You did miss the one technical advantage of PSD over TIFF and that is saving duotone information.
You're right, though who needs duotone mode nowadays? Two other equally obscure "advantages" for acting as displacement maps, and providing transparency in InDesign.
-
You're right, though who needs duotone mode nowadays? Two other equally obscure "advantages" for acting as displacement maps, and providing transparency in InDesign.
That's my thinking too. I can't recall the last time I got anywhere near it.
My understanding is that there are some 'advantages' to layered PSD's in InDesign. Mostly workflow like updating individual layers or something like that. I use ID with TIFF's and just bounce back and forth from it and Photoshop so unless you are a major ID gear head, like duotone support, not that useful.
-
Is there a way to batch process/convert PSD's to TIFF's.
The key is how you select them - in Bridge, Lightroom, Explorer/Finder. Once you've done that, there are a few ways to batch process them but it will probably involving writing a simple action and calling it from Image Processor. Or you might save the action as a droplet and call it from Lightroom. It's doable, but it's probably better to get things right from now on and not worry about legacy PSDs.
-
Is there a way to batch process/convert PSD's to TIFF's.
I built a droplet from an Action. Then consider ZIP compression (slower save and open, smaller on disk?).
-
Many thanks to all who responded.
Since there is no clear advantage (for my needs) to the psd format, and the tiff is better for archival purposes, I have my answer.
-
Does anyone have a suggestion for files that exceed the 4GB Tiff specification? I see there is an attempt to make a bigtiff format, which it seems cs6 is capable of reading but not writing.
I have been stitching very large panoramas and so far have only been able to use .psb for saving the few really large ones I've got. I'm currently using cs5.
-
Does anyone have a suggestion for files that exceed the 4GB Tiff specification? I see there is an attempt to make a bigtiff format, which it seems cs6 is capable of reading but not writing.
In that case, you'll need to stick with PSB.
-
Does anyone have a suggestion for files that exceed the 4GB Tiff specification? I see there is an attempt to make a bigtiff format, which it seems cs6 is capable of reading but not writing.
I have been stitching very large panoramas and so far have only been able to use .psb for saving the few really large ones I've got. I'm currently using cs5.
There's no need to have the entire workflow in one file. You can easily flatten at some point to reduce size and then continue on with your workflow to keep the file under 4
gb. That would eliminate the need for PSB.
Victor
-
My workflow: ACR -> PSCS6.
After performing any necessary edits in PS I wish to save the file as 16 bit format with all layers preserved.
The format choices seem to be psd or tiff. Is there some advantage to choosing one or the other (assuming one does not anticipate opening the file in some other software that will not recognize the psd)?
Thanks.
TIFFs have two file compression choices (LZW and ZIP) and two layer compression choices (RLE and ZIP).
TIFFs using LZW/ZIP compression and RLE layer compression produces files roughly twice the size of PSD and TIFFs with ZIP compression and ZIP layer compression.
PSD and TIFFs with ZIP+ZIP are slower to save and open than TIFFs using RLE layer compression (LZW and ZIP file compression).
So PSD and TIFF ZIP+ZIP give you smaller but slower saving and opening files.
TIFFs (LZW and ZIP) using RLE layer compression give you large files but faster opening and saving.
Best look at the TIFF saving dialogue box when trying to make sense of the above.
-
This is a tad OT but I discovered this while playing around with TIFF vs. PSD.
I’m seeing issues under 10.9 with TIFF and PSD in terms of file compatibility outside Photoshop. Wondering if anyone else can replicate it, even on Windows. Trying to figure out if this is an OS or Adobe bug.
I’m creating a document with layers, path’s, Smart Objects and Alpha Channels. It is the Apha Channel that seems to be the issue whereby both the thumbnail seen in the Finder, and more importantly how other app’s preview the content of the image (Preview, Text Edit, MS Word, Graphic Converter). In a nutshell, only the image portion defined within the Alpha Channel show, evertying else can’t be seen. Trying differing compression for TIFF doesn’t alter this result. The same issues appear with PSD. Of course Photoshop and InDesign show the image correctly but no other app’s do. Only when I remove the Alpha Channel do all other applications handle both PSD and TIFF correctly.
I’ve got two TIFFs (as PSD behave the same). One has a layer, a Smart Object and a path. It works fine in other app’s and previews correctly in the Finder. The 2nd document is identical expect I’ve created an Alpha Channel. It does not preview correctly in the Finder and when opened in various application only show the image content defined in the Alpha Channel. Can upload the two if anyone is interested.
-
Pretty sure that's a long standing issue, Andrew. I've a vague memory that it's related to apps making use of QuickTime to read the file. Does that ring a bell?
John
-
Doesn't ring a bell but I did see Graphic Converter, one of the app's I tested, specify something about altering the PSD preferences to disable "Use QuickTime/CoreImage" option. That did help in that one case. If so, Windows users would be immune to this?
-
Here's the warning and having to force sRGB onto the doc isn't a good one:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Warning.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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. ::)
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.
-
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.
-
Surely by your 'logic' LR is destructive if you make a print too. ::)
Actually no and had you read or understood the post I made, you'd see I stated that too.
-
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'.
-
I did read and 'understand' post where you tripped yourself up with your own 'logic'.
Clearly you didn't. Enough said.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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:
BTW, layers are only 'non destructive' if your idea of non destructive is the ability to undo an edit.
You wrote:
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.
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 ;D
-
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.
-
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?
Because there is no difference. If you're free from making Duotones or Displacement maps do this:
Open a layered document with edits.
Duplicate it then flatten that copy.
Use Apply Image command, subtract one from the other with offset at 128.
Results: they are identical pixel for pixel. The resulting file made of the subtraction is completely gray. When the images are truly identical as they are in this case, every pixel in the image would be a solid level 128 gray. Pixels that aren't level 128 gray are different by the amount they depart from 128 gray which is useful. You can use Levels to exaggerate the difference, which makes patterns easier to see. With the Offset of 128, its far easier to see differences. Not necessary with this test, the results are all pixels are level 128. This is HOW I justify why I seem to think there is no difference between a flattened and non flattened file. Scientific testing and analysis, give it a try sometime...
As to insults, you're the one thowing them out and the paper trail is clear to probably everyone but you:
Not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or genuinely believe the nonsense you come out with, Old Dog.
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.
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.
Are you really so very dippy, you do not understand this?
I did read and 'understand' post where you tripped yourself up with your own 'logic'.
-
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:You wrote: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. 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 ;D
What patronising nonsense. To use an analogy - you've proved quite well that a circle is well circular. The problem is that we're talking about squares. Whether a flattened image is identical to an unflattened one when printing is completely and utterly beside the point. Never said it wasn't either.
My whole point was about being able to go back and re-edit an unflattened image. Not something you can do once flattened.
Re-editing is not the same as being able to simply undo an edit. Though my PS edits are in fact undoable i.e. non-destructive, as much as they can be. Which is quite a lot for my work as it happens.
BTW I know exactly what parametric editing is and how it differs from bitmap editing and is why I called you out on your duff reasoning. What also seems to have passed you by is that a lot of PS work can in fact be parametric, smart objects, smart filters, adjustment layers, not exactly old school bitmap editing is it? A lot of my PS workflow is very similar to my LR workflow in fact or to be precise, my LR workflows resembles my PS workflow as I did that style of non-destructive editing with images in PS before LR appeared. Though LR is much better at it, with for example virtual copies saving a lot of space compared to actual physical duplicates. PS is a very, very clever programme and can do a lot of the same things as LR, albeit in different ways. Heck it now even has the power of the LR dev module available as a filter and not just with smart objects opening via ACR.
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.
And yet again, you do not get it. I re-edit my work and I do not flatten things because I like to keep all the editing options I can open. Plus, if a client asks for some shots with the tone of a particular toned image, I can quickly look at the original, copy the duo/tritone info and replicate. Your method would involve pointlessly starting from scratch.
But then again I'm a working photographer, whereas you take a few snaps now and again with minimal post work. Yet you ignorantly try and lecture me about my job.
-
My whole point was about being able to go back and re-edit an unflattened image.
Thanks for admitting you completely missed my points and misread and missunderstood what I wrote.
What also seems to have passed you by is that a lot of PS work can in fact be parametric, smart objects, smart filters, adjustment layers, not exactly old school bitmap editing is it?
Again, it's passed you by, there are no parametric edits in Photoshop** as there are in LR. And yes, it is totally old school bitmap editing. A term you seem to also misunderstand.
PS is a very, very clever programme and can do a lot of the same things as LR, albeit in different ways.
Nice try moving the discussion away from your misundersatndings!
To use an analogy - you've proved quite well that a circle is well circular.
I've also proved you have a very difficult time understanding English. The paper trail is very clear for anyone other than yourself to recognize. If you don't feel foolish yet by your writings, you never well.
But then again I'm a working photographer, whereas you take a few snaps now and again with minimal post work. Yet you ignorantly try and lecture me about my job.
You have done an excellent job making us understand your lack of understanding of image processing! You've done nothing to prove anything about your understanding of photography (thankfully). And no I've not lectured you one your job, only your inability to read and understand English or the factors surrounding non destructive editing.
**http://dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing
-
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.
And yet again, you do not get it. I re-edit my work and I do not flatten things because I like to keep all the editing options I can open.
And yet again you sir don't get it. You can create a Duotone with layers, make it look exactly as you wish, convert to RGB and you STILL have layers but now you can save as a TIFF. So we're back to topic and no, creating a Duotone look does not force you to save as a PSD.
You may be a fine photographer but in terms of understanding image processing and understanding the English language, you've got severe issues.
But then again I'm a working photographer, whereas you take a few snaps now and again with minimal post work.
You of course have absolutely no idea what I shoot or what I process nor how. The above new statement once again illustrates you're exhibiting troll like behavior. We'll add that silly statement to the insults you've thrown around these parts, all while accusing me of doing so. You really are a class act jjj or whoever you really are!
-
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anger_management_control_tips_techniques.htm (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anger_management_control_tips_techniques.htm)
-
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anger_management_control_tips_techniques.htm (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anger_management_control_tips_techniques.htm)
Better for jjj would be:http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf
But first: http://www.topmarks.co.uk/english-games/5-7-years/learning-to-read
-
And yet again you sir don't get it. You can create a Duotone with layers, make it look exactly as you wish, convert to RGB and you STILL have layers but now you can save as a TIFF. So we're back to topic and no, creating a Duotone look does not force you to save as a PSD.
I've said numerous times if doing that you lose the duotone information and cannot re-edit the toning. You really do not understand that I will often rework my photographs and thus your workflow is useless for me. No matter how many times you post it. Once you convert to RGB, you cannot re-jig the toning.
Also having retaining layers is irrelevant to duo/tritones as no layers are involved.
You may be a fine photographer but in terms of understanding image processing and understanding the English language, you've got severe issues. You of course have absolutely no idea what I shoot or what I process nor how.
I have seen your website and the kind of work you have chosen to display. If that is not your best work then as where else would it be?
The above new statement once again illustrates you're exhibiting troll like behavior. We'll add that silly statement to the insults you've thrown around these parts, all while accusing me of doing so. You really are a class act jjj or whoever you really are!
My identity is not a secret and I have said numerous times on LuLa that I do not like anonymous posting.
-
Better for jjj would be:http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf
Good of you to link to that as it backs up my argument, not yours.
From said article as to the benefits of NDI
"As the capability of NDI through adjustment layers has grown, it has become possible to keep access to a virtually infinite number of variations of a particular file inside a single TIFF or Photoshop Document (PSD) file"
"By using layers and layer sets effectively, many different versions of an image can be stored in a single file. While different versions can be stored in a single document, only one version will be visible at one time. This composite is what you see in Photoshop and is used to build the preview at the time the file is saved.
"Unlimited undo: Since all image adjustments are saved simply as processing instructions, it’s easy to change those instructions to create a different interpretation of an image. In order to save the additional variations, all the user needs to do is to save the instructions that are used to create the variations."
Which describes the PS tools and methodology that I like to use - smart objects, adjustment layers, smart filters, blending modes, opacity..... All are a set of instructions which get applied to the screen display or when printing and all of which I can rejig or remove at any time and I have my untouched and pristine original image. The fact that you can do destructive editing in PS does not mean that a PS workflow is only destructive.
In fact I can simply use ACR on anything I want in PS and as that is the quintessential ND editing tool, how can you possibly claim you cannot work non destructively in PS?
But first: http://www.topmarks.co.uk/english-games/5-7-years/learning-to-read
Funny that I was always the best reader in class then. And more recently in script readings I was always the first to finish and still could recall more details and points about the writing than anyone else.
-
I've said numerous times if doing that you lose the duotone information and cannot re-edit the toning.
Of course you can. But you have to do this in RGB mode. So what? Or, as I've said half a dozen times, WHEN YOU'RE DONE EDITING, convert (flatten, convert to RGB whatever). Save as TIFF, the origins of this topic you've dragged into a quagmire of your own misunderstandings.
Also having retaining layers is irrelevant to duo/tritones as no layers are involved.
Would you tell the 'other' JJJ who's so in love with Layers to return and comment? Wait, don't do that, he's as lost as you are.
I have seen your website and the kind of work you have chosen to display.
Being as ill equipped as you are to understand so much, might I point out that what you see on my web page in no way gives you any understanding of my work or how I process images. Not to make the stupid statement that you did (you take a few snaps now and again with minimal post work.). Bet you dollars to doughnuts I was working on commercial images in Photoshop long before you. That they are not on my web page doesn't change said facts!
If that is not your best work then as where else would it be?
Best work, no. And again, your mindless opinions about my work, which spans 3 decades and is absolutely not represented on my site illustrates you make statements and have opinions that are based on little or no actual, salient information. You're no more correct about my work, or how I edit my files as you are about image processing! You are very good at making assumptions without much data. Please tell me what images you looked at and where it is stated this is to be represented as my best work?
My identity is not a secret
Really? What's your full name? Where do you live? You've got a link to a web site which presumably, using the same faulty logic as you use, shows all the images you've ever produced, yet no information about you.
You're completely lost here. Your first post didn't add anything useful to the topic IMHO, you've been nasty and acting like a troll. You're so out of your league in terms of the technical aspects that you have to resort to pissing on my web images because you might actually recognize you haven’t made any senses or contribution to the topic. It really is time to move on. Or must you have the post locked due to your bad behavior?
-
Good of you to link to that as it backs up my argument, not yours.
From said article as to the benefits of NDI
"As the capability of NDI through adjustment layers has grown, it has become possible to keep access to a virtually infinite number of variations of a particular file inside a single TIFF or Photoshop Document (PSD) file"
"By using layers and layer sets effectively, many different versions of an image can be stored in a single file. While different versions can be stored in a single document, only one version will be visible at one time. This composite is what you see in Photoshop and is used to build the preview at the time the file is saved.
"Unlimited undo: Since all image adjustments are saved simply as processing instructions, it’s easy to change those instructions to create a different interpretation of an image. In order to save the additional variations, all the user needs to do is to save the instructions that are used to create the variations."
Which describes the PS tools and methodology that I like to use - smart objects, adjustment layers, smart filters, blending modes, opacity..... All are a set of instructions which get applied to the screen display or when printing and all of which I can rejig or remove at any time and I have my untouched and pristine original image. The fact that you can do destructive editing in PS does not mean that a PS workflow is only destructive.
In fact I can simply use ACR on anything I want in PS and as that is the quintessential ND editing tool, how can you possibly claim you cannot work non destructively in PS?
Well I guess if you can't understand my writings, you have no hope of understanding Peter. No where does he say that Photoshop is a parametric editor! ACR like LR is. That you don't understand how ACR or LR opereates, and assume that ACR being a plug-in is like your layers or other NDI edits isn't surprising.
Funny that I was always the best reader in class then. And more recently in script readings I was always the first to finish and still could recall more details and points about the writing than anyone else.
You are a legend in your own mind.
-
Thanks for admitting you completely missed my points and misread and missunderstood what I wrote.
Since I started the discussion on PS where I said you can only re-edit only if you do not flatten, it was you who changed the argument around.
Duotones and layer flattening were two separate topics not one.
Again, it's passed you by, there are no parametric edits in Photoshop** as there are in LR. And yes, it is totally old school bitmap editing. A term you seem to also misunderstand.
Have you even used PS this century? ACR, smart objects and all the other things I listed in post above are parametric. Even the paper you linked to says so. Are you going to now say Adobe are talking rubbish.
Nice try moving the discussion away from your misundersatndings! I've also proved you have a very difficult time understanding English.
You proved nothing other than how poor your reading is.
-
Since I started the discussion on PS and said you can only re-edit only if you do not flatten, it was you who changed the argument around.
Duotones and layer flattening were two separate topics not one.
Try connecting the dots IF you can. You're wrong about both. Duotone's were mentioned because of lack of TIFF support. Not important. I've shown you how to save in TIFF and produce a Duotone appearing images. Now IF you find a printer who demands not RGB or CMYK but a Photoshop PSD saved as Duotone, well save as PSD. Go find that printer, we need to all talk to him! As for flattening, you 've missed the point from the very first post no matter how many times or how short the sentences are. You are still lost.
Have you even used PS this century?
This century and about 2 months after the first version was released (last century, 1990). You?
ACR, smart objects and all the other things I listed in post above are parametric.
ACR yes, you got that right, good guess. Otherwise no. You have to read everything over again or try your native language.
-
Since I started the discussion on PS and said you can only re-edit only if you do not flatten, it was you who changed the argument around.
Funny, the first mention of Photoshop is Reply #2. Your first post was #25 (This will also make for a destructive workflow, something many of us like to avoid). Talk about selective reading, comprehension and memory!
Run away, you keep writing posts that make you look sillier.
Note: feel better with the 'since I started the discussion'? You still came here post #25, didn't add anything useful to the discussion.
-
Well I guess if you can't understand my writings, you have no hope of understanding Peter. No where does he say that Photoshop is a parametric editor! ACR like LR is. That you don't understand how ACR or LR opereates, and assume that ACR being a plug-in is like your layers or other NDI edits isn't surprising.
My last post to you.
I've been working on and editing raw files in PS for many years, not rasterised files, raw files. So if PS is incapable of doing parametric editing that would be impossible wouldn't it? And all those other people like Julianne Kost and Russell Brown must also be making things up.
Julianne Kost - Learn Julieanne’s top 5 favorite features in Photoshop 13.1 including refinements to the Crop Tool, nondestructive editing with Blur Gallery and Liquify (http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/julieannes-top-5-features-for-photographers-in-photoshop-131-exclusively-for-creative-cloud-members/)
From John Nack (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2005/11/non_destructive_raw_editing_with_smart_obj.html) the [ex] product manager of Photoshop talking in 2005 - "So, the next time you hear someone crowing about non-destructive editing, remember that not only have we been doing this for the last three years with Camera Raw; we’re now taking it to a new level, letting you keep data intact while leveraging the unique power of the Photoshop tool set." There's also a link to Russel Brown demoing non-destructive editing in PS in the John Nack link.
So you are not only contradicting me, but also the guy who ran photoshop and the two most recognisable faces that promote and teach Photoshop.
Oh and quoting only part of a sentence to change it's meaning to suit yourself - nice try.
-
My last post to you.
Now you're catching on!
I've been working on and editing raw files in PS for many years, not rasterised files, raw files. So if PS is incapable of doing parametric editing that would be impossible wouldn't it? And all those other people like Julianne Kost and Russell Brown must also be making things up.
Sure, so do this. Remove ACR from your computer and attempt to run it on those raw files using parametric edits. Not going to happen. ACR is a plug-in. Do I need to explan what that measn too?
Julianne Kost - Learn Julieanne’s top 5 favorite features in Photoshop 13.1 including refinements to the Crop Tool, nondestructive editing with Blur Gallery and Liquify
From John Nack the [ex] product manager of Photoshop talking in 2005 - "So, the next time you hear someone crowing about non-destructive editing, remember that not only have we been doing this for the last three years with Camera Raw; we’re now taking it to a new level, letting you keep data intact while leveraging the unique power of the Photoshop tool set." There's also a link to Russel Brown demoing non-destructive editing in PS in the John Nack link.
Just like Peter, neither are stating Photoshop is a parametric editor because it isn't. Only you seem to think it is. And you're wrong.
You probably will not understand this either: Go into a word processor, edit some text. Do a Save As and save that iteration (what Peter calls Derivative). That's a non destructive edit too. That you have again missed the difference between NDI and parametric editing is completely expected at this point.
-
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I knew that you'd even claim that the people behind Photoshop were wrong.
BTW I never called PS a parametic editor as it can do both bitmap and non destructive editing [parametric] as stated and demonstrated by all the people who are the experts, but then what do they know?
I also don't do 'save as' in PS as my edits do not require it, being non-destructive and all. :P
-
BTW I never called PS a parametic editor as it can do both bitmap and non destructive editing [parametric] as stated and demonstrated by all the people who are the experts, but then what do they know?
The 'other' JJJ who said he was done must have written this:
What also seems to have passed you by is that a lot of PS work can in fact be parametric, smart objects, smart filters, adjustment layers, not exactly old school bitmap editing is it?
You need to see a doctor because I think you may have a brain tumor. You done now?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I knew that you'd even claim that the people behind Photoshop were wrong.
No, just you. I've yet to see anything my friends John or Julieann have written that's wrong.
-
you guys make a great case for maintaining one's anonymity on the internet. wouldn't your time be better spent gettin drunk or something?
-
"...Coming to bed, dear?"
"Right after I read the latest round in the ongoing tiff between the psd-off dudes on LuLa..."
;D
-
"...Coming to bed, dear?"
"Right after I read the latest round in the ongoing tiff between the psd-off dudes on LuLa..."
;D
Awesome! ;D
-
you guys make a great case for maintaining one's anonymity on the internet. wouldn't your time be better spent gettin drunk or something?
It's far more entertaining watching Andrew demonstrate how little he knows about Photoshop. Besides with my brain tumour, I shouldn't really drink. ;)
-
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anger_management_control_tips_techniques.htm (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/anger_management_control_tips_techniques.htm)
It seems that looking in the mirror is a subjective exercise for some (or two).
And the pissing match goes on.
-
It takes no more effort to open a RAW file and edit it and save it as in the open TIFF format than it does to save it to the proprietary PSD format. No difference in batch processing time with an action either. File sizes are equivalent with the two formats so no benefit to PSD in terms of file handling, storage, and archiving.
With Adobe continuing to buy up their competitors and shut them down and now forcing people to rent their software and use it online, I am moving away from all Adobe products over time. The transition is much easier with all my files in RAW, TIFF, and JPEG format.
I have been using mostly TIFF as all the labs, printers, and graphics designers, and all the people overseas that I work with use TIFF and none use PSD format files. Initially I would have RAW, PSD, TIFF, and JPEG versions of images and it was crazy. At least I was never suckered into the Adobe DNG format which provides no advantages at all.
-
With Adobe continuing to buy up their competitors and shut them down and now forcing people to rent their software and use it online, I am moving away from all Adobe products over time. The transition is much easier with all my files in RAW, TIFF, and JPEG format.
You're aware that Adobe owns and controls the TIFF format, right?
-
It takes no more effort to open a RAW file and edit it and save it as in the open TIFF format than it does to save it to the proprietary PSD format. ... At least I was never suckered into the Adobe DNG format which provides no advantages at all.
DNG does have one advantage, IMHO, and that is one can edit a 'raw' image with a tool such as Lightoom and not have to worry about an XML sidecar file to store the edits. Drives me crazy to have two files for each image to worry about. Converting my raw NEFs to DNG when importing removes that necessity, as Lightroom's adjustments can be stored as metadata in the DNG file itself (as well as the LR database, of course) instead in a sidecar.
-
Another reason PSD's suck <g>. Over on PhotoNet, a photographer is using DropBox and uploading TIFF's and PSD's. Same images, two formats. PSD's are NOT previewing correctly on DropBox despite the browsers checking out as color managed (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter). TIFF's are of course previewing correctly. It's not the browser, something DropBox is doing to show the previews, and it's wrong. I'm seeing the same issue. Fix is easy, don't use PSD. Or to quote: "That's another fine mess you've (PSD) gotten us into" ;D