Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World  (Read 28998 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #20 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?

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #21 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
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #22 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!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #23 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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 12:33:23 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Dave Gurtcheff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 696
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #24 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
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #25 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."
Logged

Dave Gurtcheff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 696
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #26 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
Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

texshooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #28 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?
Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
- Dean

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #31 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.


Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #32 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 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
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1021
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #33 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
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #34 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
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Sareesh Sudhakaran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
    • The Indie Farm
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
- Dean

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #38 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.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: TIFF versus PSD or PSB in this Brave New World
« Reply #39 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
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 01:53:46 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up