Known Participant

Answered

workflow working with PSDs

Forum|Forum|30 days ago
September 7, 2026
13 replies
96 views

Hello all

I am looking to ensure my workflow is optimised when I am working with RAW files through to the final print ready file.
I normally open the RAW file and save it down as a PSD file. This is my working file.

When I am happy with the image, I flatten the PSD and then save it as a TIF file. The flattened TIF can still be a large file size but I’ve always believed this is the best file format for the final design.

Then that file is either printed as a standalone file or inserted into Indesign.
I also resize the PSD and then save it as a web asset.
I have come across creatives using TIF as the layered working file and also people using JPEG as the final file to either be printed or inserted into Indesign. I don’t normally use this workflow.
Be great to get your thoughts. Thanks as ever.

Correct answer Jessica32880474w752

Hi @Happy_coder

Your workflow is actually quite sensible, especially because you're keeping the PSD as the editable master file. I’d generally recommend keeping that approach rather than using TIFF as the primary working file.

A few points I’d consider:

RAW → PSD: Good choice for the main working file. You retain your Photoshop layers, masks, adjustments, smart objects, etc., so you have a flexible master that you can return to later.
PSD → TIFF for print: This can work very well, particularly when the printer or workflow specifically calls for TIFF. However, I wouldn't say TIFF is automatically “the best” final format for every print job. The required format really depends on the printer, colour workflow, and how the file will be used.
JPEG for print: JPEG isn't inherently wrong. A high-quality JPEG can be perfectly acceptable for some print workflows, especially for photographic images, but you lose information through compression and it isn't ideal when you need maximum flexibility or repeated editing.
InDesign: If you're placing the image into InDesign, I’d normally keep the high-resolution PSD/TIFF available and let InDesign handle the layout and final PDF output. Avoid unnecessarily flattening or recompressing the image multiple times.
Web assets: Your approach of creating a separate, appropriately resized web version is the right idea. I’d treat the original PSD as the master and generate web derivatives from it rather than resizing your print-ready file.

One other thing I'd watch is colour management. For print, the correct colour profile and the printer's requirements are often more important than whether the final image happens to be PSD or TIFF.

So, in short, I'd think of it as:

RAW → PSD master → print-specific TIFF/PSD → InDesign → print PDF

and separately:

PSD master → resized/compressed web image

The biggest advantage of your workflow is that you're keeping a high-quality, editable master and creating purpose-specific derivatives from it. That's generally a safer approach than treating one flattened file as the source for everything.

Conrad_C

Community Expert

If the concern is large file size, some things to think about…

It matters how you compress the TIFF file:

TIFF uncompressed is potentially larger than PSD, which does use some compression.
TIFF with LZW compression can save some space, and has been common in prepress workflows for many years.
TIFF with ZIP compression can potentially save the most space while being lossless. Two issues with TIFF+ZIP are although it should be fine, there may be some print service providers running equipment old enough that it doesn't properly support TIFF with ZIP compression. Also, TIFF+ZIP files can take a very long time to save.

For InDesign, one reason to use PSD over TIFF is if you need to control image layer visibility from the InDesign document. Then you’d place a layered PSD file. If that’s not needed, a flattened TIFF is fine.

And I think it was already mentioned that TIFF/PSD at 8 bits per channel will be a much smaller file than 16 bits per channel. It’s OK to keep the layered original as 16 bits/channel, but if the flattened copies of images you’re placing for prepress are the final versions of images (they won’t be edited again), they will be just fine as 8 bits/channel.

Chris 486

Community Expert

It might help guide the conversation if you can tell us what your goal is. Are files getting too big for storage? Are you getting crashes? Just curious to see what others are doing? Is compression ok at any level? Are you archiving high quality images? etc.

Workflows are generally developed to meet an end. There really is not just a “best” workflow. What people have already commented are pretty good advice in general.

H

Happy_coderAuthor

Known Participant

Hello Chris, yes I was finding working with large photoshop files a little unwieldy. So many layers, smart objects, duplicated layers and numerous adjustment layers and blending modes. I do pick up files from other creatives.
I do try and clean up these files but guess there is a danger to that.
Think saving the PSD as a flattened TIF is my preferred option when preparing the final images.
My comments are just born out of curiosity and appreciate people have a different ways of working to suit themselves or the environment they have to work in.
Thanks al for your comments.

Chris 486

Community Expert

Absolutely makes sense! Just out of curiosity, what are your computer specs? If you regularly work with large files, maybe a hardware upgrade somewhere can help.

Getting files from others can also be hard when they are not following best practices. Sometime doing a little cleanup is really helpful to work faster witht he file. We’re all happy to answer any specific questions help get files sizes down or anything else!

Stephen Marsh

Community Expert

The traditional use of PSD for working file with layers at original resolution and a flattened, downsampled TIFF for use in layout is generally my preferred workflow.

H

Happy_coderAuthor

Known Participant

That’s great, thanks Stephen for your reply. The PSD’s I am coming across now are getting larger and larger, with so many memory draining layers.

J

Jessica32880474w752Correct answer

Participant

Hi @Happy_coder

Your workflow is actually quite sensible, especially because you're keeping the PSD as the editable master file. I’d generally recommend keeping that approach rather than using TIFF as the primary working file.

A few points I’d consider:

RAW → PSD: Good choice for the main working file. You retain your Photoshop layers, masks, adjustments, smart objects, etc., so you have a flexible master that you can return to later.
PSD → TIFF for print: This can work very well, particularly when the printer or workflow specifically calls for TIFF. However, I wouldn't say TIFF is automatically “the best” final format for every print job. The required format really depends on the printer, colour workflow, and how the file will be used.
JPEG for print: JPEG isn't inherently wrong. A high-quality JPEG can be perfectly acceptable for some print workflows, especially for photographic images, but you lose information through compression and it isn't ideal when you need maximum flexibility or repeated editing.
InDesign: If you're placing the image into InDesign, I’d normally keep the high-resolution PSD/TIFF available and let InDesign handle the layout and final PDF output. Avoid unnecessarily flattening or recompressing the image multiple times.
Web assets: Your approach of creating a separate, appropriately resized web version is the right idea. I’d treat the original PSD as the master and generate web derivatives from it rather than resizing your print-ready file.

One other thing I'd watch is colour management. For print, the correct colour profile and the printer's requirements are often more important than whether the final image happens to be PSD or TIFF.

So, in short, I'd think of it as:

RAW → PSD master → print-specific TIFF/PSD → InDesign → print PDF

and separately:

PSD master → resized/compressed web image

The biggest advantage of your workflow is that you're keeping a high-quality, editable master and creating purpose-specific derivatives from it. That's generally a safer approach than treating one flattened file as the source for everything.

H

Happy_coderAuthor

Known Participant

That’s great, thanks so much Jessica.
I have seen many designers choose the final file in JPEG format but as you state, there is some compression when exporting the file.
Regarding the colour management, which I agree is probably more important than file format, I tend to work in RGB (profile Adobe RGB (1998)) and I’m minded to export retaining that profile. If the client insists on a CMYK colour space, I tend to convert the profile to my working CMYK colour space of Coated FOGRA39 (ISO 12647-2:2004).
Unless the printer does specify a custom ICC Profile.
Thanks again for such a detailed response to my query.

davescm

Community Expert

I am puzzled as to why you go through the TIFF stage. There is nothing wrong with TIFF, but why not place the PSD directly in InDesign? That way if you edit it, the InDesign document will flag it for update and a click will update it.

For web/screen use, an exported jpeg will give the best balance between file size and quality. Remember to convert to sRGB and embed the profile.

Dave

H

Happy_coderAuthor

Known Participant

Hello Dave, thanks for taking time to reply.
I am conscious of the size of the PSD file - often files I get handed to are 6/7gb and even when linked, they can be slow to deal with. The PSD file can have numerous layers, with so many smart objects and adjustment layers.
Many creatives seem to use a TIF in my experience and I was always under the impression it was down to file size as you can flatten the file. I agree it’s another file in the workflow and version control can be an issue.
Don’t TIFs print better? Or is that a myth?
I take on board your comments about the web asset. I usually resize the file when exporting.
Thanks again.

D Fosse

Community Expert

@Happy_coder

A PSD and a TIFF will have exactly the same size uncompressed. If you use compression, there might be differences depending on compression algorithm. Be aware that LZW compression on 16 bit files will usually increase the file size, not reduce it. It was made for 8 bit data.

Also be aware that compression dramatically increases open/save times, sometimes 5x to 7x. Layered files are especially affected. I never use compression, in any form, for this reason.

But I would like to emphasize a different matter: There is a golden rule for working with raw files, which is that you should always do as much as possible in the raw converter (ACR/LrC) before opening into Photoshop. Because of the linear tone curve and the way a sensor records light, a raw file has a dynamic range of up to 14 stops. A gamma-encoded RGB file, however, only has a workable dynamic range of about 8 stops.

This means that as you open a file into Photoshop, a lot of data is thrown out and discarded, and there’s no way to get that back in Photoshop. Highlights will be permanently clipped, whereas you could potentially have several stops of recovery available in ACR.

(Assuming a standard SDR workflow. With an HDR workflow, you’ll be able to utilise more of the raw data in the RGB file).

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.