Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: PSD vs Tiff  (Read 7198 times)

genedel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
PSD vs Tiff
« on: December 05, 2006, 11:55:23 am »

Can tell me the advantage/disadvantage of saving photos in PSD vs Tiff ?
Thanks
Gene
Logged

mikeseb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
    • http://www.michaelsebastian.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2006, 05:05:07 pm »

I used to store all my working files in .PSD format. Then I read Peter Krogh's "DAM Book" on digital asset management. He points out that .PSD is an Adobe proprietary file format (albeit a widely used and well-supported one), whereas .TIF is an open format. Krogh maintains that, for compatibility going forward, using open formats is the better choice for the long haul. Quoting from memory here but I believe I have the gist of it.

Time will tell if he's right, but I now save everything in TIFF format except for digital-camera or -back originals, which get converted to DNG's. When scanning film I save in TIFF right out of the scanner.

It seems that TIFF and PSD files have pretty much the same capabilities; I'm sure someone will point out where I'm wrong.
Logged
michael sebast

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2006, 07:07:08 pm »

Layered Tiffs (since Photoshop CS at least) using the TIFF-6 spec can save -EVERYTHING- a PSD file can save including layers, channels, paths, transparecy, etc. The only limitation to TIFF-6 is a max file size of 4 gigs/file...but it can save out images larger than the 30,000 limits of PSD files.

For larger images, the only format is PSB files that can store up to 300,000 pixels.

Layered Tiffs may not be supported by -ALL- tiff readers (although recent ones should) and some of the compression options such as zip compression may not be compatible with 3rd part tiff readers (such as ImagePrint) but -THEY- should be encouraged to fix that!
Logged

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 394
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2006, 08:08:11 pm »

In my experience, an image with layers and masks saved as a TIFF will be significantly larger than if stored as PSD.  It is not a direct relationship, but many 600mb layered tiffs I have converted to PSD's become 400mb in size.

I began saving my layered files as PSDs because of this.  I would guess that the PSD's would save faster, take less hard drive space, and open faster.

I would be interested to know if this would translate to less scatch space used while the image was open.  Anyone know?

-Eric
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2006, 10:53:22 pm »

Quote
In my experience, an image with layers and masks saved as a TIFF will be significantly larger than if stored as PSD.  It is not a direct relationship, but many 600mb layered tiffs I have converted to PSD's become 400mb in size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would only be true if you were saving PSDs without the "Backwards Compatibility" option checked...Tiff out of Photoshop saves this by default. However, Tiff with zip compression will be the smallest saved file size without lossy compression.
Logged

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 394
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2006, 01:10:15 am »

Quote
That would only be true if you were saving PSDs without the "Backwards Compatibility" option checked...Tiff out of Photoshop saves this by default. However, Tiff with zip compression will be the smallest saved file size without lossy compression.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you Jeff.  So is "Backwards Compatibilty" important in your opinion. Are you using the Tiff with zip compression method or the PSD method in your workflow?

-Eric
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2006, 10:59:03 am »

Quote
Thank you Jeff.  So is "Backwards Compatibilty" important in your opinion. Are you using the Tiff with zip compression method or the PSD method in your workflow?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88938\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For long term archiving and saving, I do use Tiff...sometimes with zip compression if file size is important (like buring to CD/DVD where there is a fixed amount of space), sometimes not if I'm going to be working on an image a lot. Zip compression is a bit slower to open and save-particularly on 16 bit files.

But since CS, and Photoshop's ability to save layered tiffs (which appeared in Photoshop 7 as I now recall) I really don't worry overmuch which format I choose. When saving PSDs however, I -DO- save with the "Backwards Compatibilty" since the old File Broswer and now Bridge previews those files a lot quicker. Also, Lightroom needs the embedded full preview as well.

So, PSDs with "Backwards Compatibilty" checked and layered Tiffs are essentually equal with the Tiffs capable of being smaller saved files (that are a bit slower to open/save). The Tiffs are also in a documented format while the PSDs are in a proprietary format...
Logged

Gordon Buck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 434
    • LightDescription
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2006, 01:42:50 pm »

When processing an image, I use the .psd format to save intermediate steps temporarily.  In fact, that's how I can recognize that the file is meant to be a temporary one.
Logged
Gordon
 [url=http://lightdescription.blog

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • yet
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2006, 06:09:08 pm »

Quote
I used to store all my working files in .PSD format. Then I read Peter Krogh's "DAM Book" on digital asset management. He points out that .PSD is an Adobe proprietary file format (albeit a widely used and well-supported one), whereas .TIF is an open format. Krogh maintains that, for compatibility going forward, using open formats is the better choice for the long haul. Quoting from memory here but I believe I have the gist of it.
Yes, in general, open formats would be better than closed formats.

But a format does not only need to be open, it also needs to be widely adopted.

One of the problems with Adobe's TIFF extensions has been exactly that lack of wide adoption. Another is that Adobe has slowly let the format die after acquiring Aldus; there have been few enhancements to the format (the last significant ones in 1994 and 1995, TIFF-6 is from 1992, and is fairly widely supported).

There is, for instance, no standardized tag for text or vectors, and you can't specify relationships between multiple layers of different pages.

(I'm assuming that everybody knows that Adobe is the Keeper of TIFF.)

There's a TIFF FAQ here.

There's a proposed "BigTiff" supporting far larger filesizes than 4 GiB.
Logged
Jan

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21493
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2006, 09:04:00 pm »

Quote
(I'm assuming that everybody knows that Adobe is the Keeper of TIFF.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So at the moment the choice seems to be between Adobe and Adobe.  
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

DiaAzul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 777
    • http://photo.tanzo.org/
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2006, 09:48:00 pm »

Quote
So at the moment the choice seems to be between Adobe and Adobe.   
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or you could consider looking at Microsoft HD Photo specification...but not supported by Adobe (what a surprise).

[a href=\"http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx]Microsoft HD Photo specification[/url]

You didn't think that Microsoft would let Adobe corner the market did you?
Logged
David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21493
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2006, 11:44:12 pm »

Quote
Or you could consider looking at Microsoft HD Photo specification...but not supported by Adobe (what a surprise).

Microsoft HD Photo specification

You didn't think that Microsoft would let Adobe corner the market did you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or I could consider using Microsoft's Internet Explorer as my principal browser. But, as a well-known former U.S. president once said, "It would be wrong."
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
PSD vs Tiff
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2006, 12:25:46 am »

Quote
Or you could consider looking at Microsoft HD Photo specification...but not supported by Adobe (what a surprise).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, it's not supported by anybody, anywhere since it ian't yet crossplatform (MSFT is "thinking about it") and it's unclear whether MSFT is going to charge for either encoding or decoding (MSFT is "thinking about it") and it doesn't support layers, channels or transpariency and the only compression is their own proprietary compression that may or may not be charged for (MSFT is "thinking about it")...

But, it does have some interesting apsects to it...my problem is really with the name, WMP (short for wimp). I liked its original name "Photon".

:~)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up