TIFF vs PSB

[David Eckels]

I have been processing some D850 files in PS and my usual procedure is to save worthy images as a master file in TIFF format. Two images (on the large side for me) were showing approximately 3GB in the lower left hand corner of PS (see 1 below). Aware of the 4GB limit on TIFF files, I thought, no problemo. Wrong (see 2 below). So I saved into a PSB file, which is about 2.4GB (see 3 below). I know there's some compression that could account for the smaller file size. I am using RLE compression for the layers. My question is:

Why am I running into the 4GB TIFF limit when the image size is less than that?

I am running the latest edition of PS (20.0.3) on a Win10 v1809 with 32G RAM. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

[nirpat89]

I could be wrong, but that number displayed on the bottom left is more of a guesstimate.  Actual size is only known after the program tries to save based on the parameters used.

:Niranjan.

[smthopr]

I could be wrong, but that number displayed on the bottom left is more of a guesstimate.  Actual size is only known after the program tries to save based on the parameters used.

:Niranjan.

I don't think the file size in the lower left corner reflects layers... so the saved file can be much larger.

[digitaldog]

I could be wrong, but that number displayed on the bottom left is more of a guesstimate. 

Exactly right. It's not terribly useful. One must use the Finder to get an accurate actual size.

[David Eckels]

Exactly right. It's not terribly useful. One must use the Finder to get an accurate actual size.

Thanks, Andrew. Does it make sense that saving as a PSB could wring out 1.6GB (4GB-2.4GB)? I thought the 260M/3.0GB reflected the imported file size on the left (260M) and the one on the right (3GB) the size with layers. I understand that these are estimates, but does it seem reasonable that they would be off by 25%, depending on how you count?

[digitaldog]

There's no reason to save a PSB if you can save a TIFF instead.

[David Eckels]

There's no reason to save a PSB if you can save a TIFF instead.

Exactly right, but that's the problem, I can't save as a TIFF.

[nirpat89]

Exactly right, but that's the problem, I can't save as a TIFF.

The way I do is to break the post-processing into a few steps, flattening the file before each new step.  This way I keep the file sizes down.  Of course, now I don't have a one super master file but a set of several (2 or three but sometimes more) and the management is a little more cumbersome.  This also cuts down opening and saving times and smaller files are easy on the computer resources.

:Niranjan.   

[kers]

I never understood why the PSD format does not allow large photos. Would make life so much easier.
With todays 50MP camera's with only a few layers in 16 bit you already cross the 2GB border.
PSB has a problem that it (often) do not show thumbnails. Or do i something wrong...

[digitaldog]

Exactly right, but that's the problem, I can't save as a TIFF.

IF you exceed TIFF and PSD size limitations, you've got zero options, you must save PSB.

[David Eckels]

Andrew, thank you, yes I hate having no options 
Kers, Yup, no thumbnails 
Niranjan, that is an alternative strategy... may I can work out a system 
Thanks for the input guys!

[Lightsmith]

For layers to add to the file size it means that the Adobe software is poorly written and keeping duplicate data on multiple layers instead of storing only the manipulation information for the layer. Can't fix stupid when it comes to software engineering as Gates has been showing again and again since 1982.

With image files that are shot with an ISO greater than 400 with my D850 I switch to 12-bit capture as the DR is already reduced. This saves on the size of the Raw files I will be working with later in post. It is unfortunate that with a TIFF one can only save as 8-bit or 16-bit.

What I have found interesting is that a native TIFF file is actually smaller than the same file saved as a TIFF using LZW compression by about 25%. Only by saving the TIFF as a zip file is the file size reduced and then only by less than 15%.

Only with a stitched pano will I get to large file sizes if I do not first resize the individual files to be used.

The TIFF 4GB limit is due to its using a 32-bit header format and until some international organization devises a change it is going to stay at 4GB. I look at that as a plus as it means that one has to think through what they are doing and why they are doing it a given way instead of in a different manner. Programmers in the mainframe or big iron environment wrote inefficient code as IBM among others would simply sell the customers a bigger and more powerful computer. Microsoft and Adobe have done the same and users foot the bill for a faster CPU and more RAM and SSD drives to compensate.

[fdisilvestro]

For layers to add to the file size it means that the Adobe software is poorly written and keeping duplicate data on multiple layers instead of storing only the manipulation information for the layer. Can't fix stupid when it comes to software engineering as Gates has been showing again and again since 1982.

There are at least 7 types of layers in Photoshop. Image or bitmap layers do increase the size of the file and there is no way around it (think of them as multiple stacked images). Adjustment layers only add the manipulation information and don't add much to the file size.

[digitaldog]

For layers to add to the file size it means that the Adobe software is poorly written and keeping duplicate data on multiple layers instead of storing only the manipulation information for the layer.

Nonsense. As already corrected and expressed, depends on the layers. Layers with pixel data take up space depending on how much of the layer has pixels vs. transparency. There's no way to correct those laws of physics (more pixels, more data).
A user may duplicate the same pixels on layers (which may be user error; Adobe cannot stop people from doing so nor should they) but the bottom line is, pixels on layers equals more data which equals more space needed to save that data. Just as if someone increases the resolution or adds canvas and add's pixels (white or otherwise); more pixels, more data, bigger file size.

[digitaldog]

The TIFF 4GB limit is due to its using a 32-bit header format and until some international organization devises a change it is going to stay at 4GB.

Adobe owns and controls TIFF and can do whatever they wish, including upping the limit IF they desired. They've decided that role goes to PSB.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

https://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/bigtiff.html
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000328.shtml
http://bigtiff.org/

The BigTIFF version has already been developed for some time. It's up to Adobe if they want to pursue that path in the general interest, or push a proprietary format like PSB that benefits few.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

It's up to Adobe if they want to pursue that path in the general interest, or push a proprietary format like PSB that benefits few.

Well it benefits anyone needing such a large document in Adobe Photoshop.
Why they can't implement PSB in LR is a pisser. So don't hold your breath on Adobe doing either if history is any indication.
Photoshop user with files larger than 4GB? There's a solution for that.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well it benefits anyone needing such a large document in Adobe Photoshop.
Why they can't implement PSB in LR is a pisser. So don't hold your breath on Adobe doing either if history is any indication.
Photoshop user with files larger than 4GB? There's a solution for that.

Sure, but TIFF is used for much more than normal photos. Think e.g. about GeoTIFF applications, where numerical elevation maps are also encoded as one of the layers. Photoshop is much less used in such cases, but GIS systems are.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Sure, but TIFF is used for much more than normal photos.

And if you don't need anything larger than 4GB, you should stick with TIFF.

Photoshop is much less used in such cases, but GIS systems are.

The OP is using Photoshop, clearly outlined in his first post. IF and when he asks about GeoTIFF applications, then the comment made about them will be pertinent.