Raw & Post Processing, Printing > Digital Image Processing
PSD vs Tiff
ericstaud:
--- 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]
--- End 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?
-Eric
Schewe:
--- 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]
--- End quote ---
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...
Gordon Buck:
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.
jani:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Eric Myrvaagnes:
--- 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]
--- End quote ---
So at the moment the choice seems to be between Adobe and Adobe.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version