1 Correct answer
File format shouldn't have anything to do with performance. It's the overall size of the file.
If you have a file large enough that you need to save as a .psb - there could be ramifications if your computer is not capable of handling larger files like this.
Explore related tutorials & articles
9
Replies
interesting, cus i was thinkgin then shouldnt PSB just be the standard?
If theres no diff in performance, then why does PSD exist, just have everything be in PSB from1mb to 20gb and more no?
but as you say, its a matter of having had PSD for so long that other programs only supported it...
but if we were to only use PS, then would it not make sense to just keep PSB as our default file type?
By @Gene27167201cqus
The standard should be (really is outside Adobe apps with smaller than 2GB) TIFF, an openly documented file format that is free for anyone to use. Also owned and controlled by Adobe.
If you don't have issues with document size, you'd be far better off using TIFF than PSD.
http://digitaldog.net/files/TIFFvsPSD.pdf
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=18965.msg134830#msg134830
PSD is now a bastardized file format that is NOT a good idea to use. Even the Photoshop engineers will tell you that PSD is no longer the Photoshop "native" file format. It has no advantages and many disadvantages over TIFF.
TIFF is publicly documented, PSD is not. That makes TIFF a preferred file format for the long term conservation of digital files.
TIFF uses ZIP compression for max compression, PSD uses RLE which if you save without the Max compatibility will be a bit smaller, but at the risk of not being able to be used by apps, like Lightroom.
TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save, including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations and can go up to 4 GIGS in file size. TIFF can save all the color spaces PSD can. The ONLY thing I can think of that PSD can save that currently TIFF can't save is if you Save out of Camera Raw a cropped PSD, you can uncrop the PSD in Photoshop CS, CS2 or 3. That's one tiny obscure thing that PSD can do that TIFF currently doesn't. How many people even knew that let alone use it?
PSD used to be the preferred file format back before Adobe bastardized it for the Creative Suite. The moment that happened, PSD ceased to be a Photoshop "native" file format. PSB is the new Photoshop "native" file format for images beyond 30,000 pixels. And , at the moment, only Photoshop can open a PSB.
Getting back to the fist point, Adobe can do anything including stopping support for PSD because it's a proprietary  file format. TIFF is public, even if it's owned by Adobe (by virtue of the Aldus purchase). Even if Adobe went belly up tomorrow, TIFF would continue.
And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD. Lightroom for the first beta did NOT support PSD and Hamburg fought tooth and nail to prevent having to accept PSD. He blinked, but you still can't import a PSD without Max compat enabled-which basically makes it a TIFF with a PSD extension.
Look, I'll make it REAL simple...
TIFF = Good
PSD = Bad
Ok?
Interesting!
I can see the benefits of TIFF vs PSD, what about TIFF vs PSB?
the max for tiff was 4gb i dont believe PSB has that limit correct? would that be the only pro of PSB > TIFF?
By @Gene27167201cqus
Unfortunately, there is no either-or; if you exceed the 4GB limit, you MUST use PSB.
Now why on earth, Adobe, who owns and controls TIFF, can't up the limit, I cannot say.
I cannot say why there's a lower size limit for PSB in Lightroom Classic, either.
Adobe has a lot on its plate. But someday, I'd love to see a simple fix for this mess: update TIFF for the support over 4GB and let Lightroom Classic use it too.
AdChoices