Enable Layer Visibility for TIFFs in InDesign

[.random..]

I would like to request a long-overdue feature for Adobe InDesign: support for visibility and layer selection in TIFF files, similar to the functionality currently available with PSD files.

Currently, InDesign can read and display individual layers from PSD files on. In contrast to PSD, TIFFs are often 30–50% smaller than PSDs. This reduces storage and significantly improves network performance (e.g. VPN, NAS access). Except of this TIFF has better composite rendering in InDesign. In standard display mode, TIFFs appear significantly sharper than PSDs unless "High Quality Display" is enabled. This improves layout clarity and performance.

In magazine and editorial design, the subject's head often overlaps the masthead (logo), and this is managed via layered files. We use layered PSDs where one layer contains background and another isolated head (masking via layer effects or alpha). There are also layers which multiply hears on some hair areas, which goes over logo, makes them more visible.

TIFF is often superior in terms of size, clarity, and performance—but are unusable due to InDesign's lack of layer support.

I understand this feature may not be critical for all users, but for high-volume editorial teams, it would significantly improve efficiency, consistency, and storage use.

[leo.r]

You can add your vote to this request that was submitted in 2018:

https://indesign.uservoice.com/forums/601021-adobe-indesign-feature-requests?query=tiff%20layers

[.random..]

I did. Thanks. 

[Willi Adelberger]

I see an advantage of tiff files only for big files as they are not supported by psd. PSD are normally faster than TIFF in InDesign and support Layer  Compositions, which you should always use, if you use layered files from Photoshop. 
The Logo should normally  be done in Illustrator, not in Photoshop for quality reasons, saved as AI or PDF/ -4 and placed in InDesign. 

[.random..]

But I’m not talking about a logo in Photoshop. The logo is in vectors, ideally directly in InDesign. Below it there’s a montage, and above the logo you have the same image with the masked head and hair layer turned on.

PSDs save is super fast—especially when compression is turned off. On an SSD, it writes incredibly quickly, often within a second, which is impressive. But then the file sizes on disk really balloon. The worst part is the data transfer across the network.

There’s absolutely no reason InDesign couldn’t handle this. TIFF works with layers just as well—it’s a standard. And when you’re pulling hundreds of files a day over a VPN or through the cloud, it makes a big difference whether an image is 200MB or 400MB.

If PSD is supposedly so great for previews, I don’t understand why, in InDesign’s standard display, it’s three times more jagged than a TIFF.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Even PDF exported from Photoshop - doesn't show layers in InDesign?? 

The option to control layer's visibility is active - but the list is empty...

File size is between PSD and TIFF.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Only PSD files, not other format. (As far as Photoshop files are concerned.)

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Only PSD files, not other format. (As far as Photoshop files are concerned.)

By @Dave Creamer of IDEAS

But PDFs exported from Illustrator - or even InDesign - SHOW layers and ALLOW them to be visible / hidden?? 

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

Right--but those are not Photoshop, are they? 😜

[Eugene Tyson]

Yeh others nailed it already.

However, instead of layers - you can use Alpha Channels in Photoshop

And InDesign can access and select those - similar to layers. 

Just an example. If you prefer using TIFs - then make them like that instead of Layers in Photoshop.

Photoshop

Hope it helps. 

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

And how Alpha Channel will let someone use, for example, 10x different language related layers - with completely different contents?? 

[.random..]

But that’s exactly what won’t work — the whole point of working with the selection of visible layers is that, for example, you might turn off just the background and the test logo, and leave the top three layers on.

But more importantly, aren’t we constantly overlooking the main issue here? Why shouldn’t this be possible, if it’s technically feasible? Is it just because Adobe wants to push their PSD format? Or is there an actual reason?

And seriously — why are PSD files so huge, when TIFFs can be half the size?

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

[...] 

And seriously — why are PSD files so huge, when TIFFs can be half the size?

By @.random..

Probably because of the lack of advanced compression? 

[BobLevine]

Because they are a completely different format and the fact that they both support layers doesn't change that. PNGs are much smaller and so are JPGs. In this day an age of cheap storage, file size is not something I would put at the top of the list.

As with your barcode request, the fact that "it's technically feasible" puts it in the same category as just about every single feature that's been requested for the last 25 years.

Again, not trying to throw cold water on your needs but you're coming off as someone who thinks all they need to do is ask for new features and they're going to be rolled out. That's not how it works so if you need layer visibility you're going to have to keep using PSDs.

[.random..]

It’s not about disk space, it’s about transfer speeds over the cloud and sync speeds. There’s a big difference between working with 400 files that are 500MB each, or 250MB, or 50MB.

This is a common bad habit—assuming storage is unlimited, so we end up creating dozens of versions of the same thing, cluttering servers with so much data no one can make sense of it anymore.

I’m bringing it up now because I’ve been tasked with sorting through a twenty-year archive of fifteen magazines, and that’s when you really see whether someone used their head when saving files, or whether they worked under the assumption that space is infinite—resulting in PSD files with the same layer copied multiple times with only minor tweaks.

I know AI will soon handle this—capable of processing massive archives and organizing them into something coherent. But yes, let's say storage space itself isn’t the issue—we really do have enough of it.

What I don’t want is to pull 500MB files over VPN (which is my situation), when the same file could be 50MB—if someone had taken the time to optimize it properly.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

If you need layer control, try saving the PSD file and turn off the Maximize option, you will get close to the TIFF size. InDesign will complain but it will place it (you can disable the ID warning). In a quick test, it didn't seem to affect the InDesign file size.

I only used a small file I had access to:

PSD: 7.5 MG

Unmaximized PSD: 5.8 MG

TIFF: 5.3 MG

I wouldn't do it everytime--just when you need layer control.

[.random..]

Well, now we’re getting somewhere. Regarding these settings, I’ve always had a respect for unchecking the compatibility options, but from the short test I ran, it really makes an impressive difference in file size and doesn’t seem to affect saving speed, which is another important criterion for me.

With this step, my single-layer PSD reached a size similar to that of a regular PSD—it’s starting to get interesting.

Furthermore, I plan to implement a new workflow in which we abandon CMYK and switch to a complete Adobe RGB workflow, which will further reduce file size and increase network throughput.

Great, thanks a lot. This really helped!

[Eugene Tyson]

I don’t know for sure, just offering a workaround for the image-under-logo sandwich bit, which I’ve used before with some success. It’s not ideal though, and yeah, alpha channels won’t help if you’ve got ten language layers or complex build-ups.

Maybe it's partly because PSD and AI are Adobe’s own formats, so they get preferential treatment. TIFFs might be a bit more wild west in how third-party apps handle layer data, and that inconsistency could make it hard for InDesign to support layer control across the board. Still, it feels like a solvable problem to me and you, not a fundamental roadblock.

Honestly, if TIFFs give better previews and smaller file sizes, you’d think Adobe would want to optimise for that especially for teams juggling massive files across networks.

It’s not like editorial design is a niche use case.

[ak_1809]

psd files are meant for being a non destructive file format. Adding compression would make 0 sense because it would essentially make it destructive. Compression has the potential to make layers or adjustments lose information. The purpose to psd is for someone to be able to continiously edit the file while maintaining all information.

If you insist on using Tiff instead of psd for layering. You can just open the tiff in photoshop to disable the layer each time. Extra steps but might be worth it for you?

I would assume Tiff layers arent selectable because they would probably have to change the file structure of the Tiff format, which unrealistic because its been a format most printers have used for decades. Tiff arent original intent wasnt for editablity. It is meant to be used a flattened image. Changing the Tiff format would disrupt many workflows. Its more realistic for them to make a new file format than to change an established standard file format.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

@ak_1809

ZIP / RAR /LZW compression is non destructive...

[Mike Witherell]

Agreed. There are lossy and non-lossy compression methods. 

I, too, practice turning off the Maximize Compatibility option, and I patiently endure the complaints and warnings. File size diminishes nicely, and it always works fine placed into InDesign.

I would like to ask the OP, tho: Do you run InDesign at High-Quality Display full-time? That is what I do. 

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

I always use zip compression with TIFF files. Never leave home without it!

You can turn off the preference to save maximized files in Photoshop, although I don't know if it will affect files that already have been maximized. The default is "Ask".  I also turned off no image previews, which saved a little more space.

I didn't see a preference for max. file compatibility, but one can check the "Don't show again" box to eliminate the message. 

I normally don't run HQ display permanently, but I set my Typical display preferences to how vector art in HQ mode. When I want a HQ preview, Iturn on overprint prevew when I want it. Depending on the computer, I turn it off when done previewing. 

[ak_1809]

Yes, so? psd doesnt offer zip compression. I would have to assume because they wanted to have it open/save faster. If Adobe wanted to make a new psd zip format with layers accessiblity in indesign, im not against it.

[Dave Creamer of IDEAS]

I believe the zip compression was referring to TIFF files, which was what the OP was using and asking about.

[Robert at ID-Tasker]

Yes, so? psd doesnt offer zip compression. I would have to assume because they wanted to have it open/save faster. If Adobe wanted to make a new psd zip format with layers accessiblity in indesign, im not against it.

By @ak_1809

You've stated that compression is destructive.