Tiff files are extremely huge when exporting back to Lightroom

[Ivan5EA7]

I have been right clicking on photos in Lightroom to bring them into Photoshop to focus stack or do other edits. When I click "save" and bring them back into Lightroom as Tiffs, the files are insanely huge. I'm talking like between 500mb and 1 gig..... What is going on?! I've heard of these files being large because Tiffs are meant to reduce compression but 500mb +?? Definitely weird.... Please help

[Vegan Fanatic]

TIFF files are far from the best choice for Photoshop and Lightroom. Better off with the PSD file as it can retain layers and other edits easily. Large TIFF files are due to higher resolutions etc.

[Ivan5EA7]

So after I finish focus stacking in photoshop, how should I proceed to get the image back into Lightroom without exporting it as a 500 + mb TIFF file but still retaining quality?

[Vegan Fanatic]

PSD files are lossless as well. They also preserve layer data for complex projects.

[Q0093C-PC]

Hi there, 
Make sure that you select LZW Compression before exporting the file.
There is no quality loss, you can compare this by saving one with no compression and one with LZW compression.

Your file size will be drastically reduced.

[davescm]

A TIFF file can retain layers and edits and actually has a larger capacity than PSD, 4GB as opposed to 2GB.

Dave

[KR Seals]

That's the way it works, especially if you start with a really big file like 36 or 46 megapixels from todays high resolution cameras. It's even worse when you create files with more pixels, like panorama merges. The standard things you do in PS like many layers will result in larger files.

In LrC preferences - external editing, you can choose to have a .tif or .psd created. .psd can be somewhat smaller.

[davescm]

You mention focus stacking which means you are building up multiple pixel layers each of which has to be stored in the file. These can quickly build to several GB

[Conrad_C · Accepted solution]

That TIFF files are huge is a perception that is sort of the reverse of the reality. An uncompressed TIFF represents the “true” size of an image, in that when you do the math…

[number of pixels * bits per pixel * number of channels * number of layers + masks, channels, and other data] equals

…the file size you typically get in a TIFF document. From any software, on any platform.

Instead of TIFF file being huge, what really happens is that source files are typically unusably small. For example, a raw file might only be 20MB. But you can’t use it, because a raw file is only one channel of unprocessed data, maybe 10 or 12 bits per pixel, and in some cameras that’s also compressed. To use it, you need to process the one raw channel into three color channels (RGB). Then you might want to edit it at 16 bits per channel. Already you have made the file quite a lot bigger: 3 channels at 16 bits each, instead of 1 channel at 10–12 bits.

Then you want to stack. That means unavoidably, you’re adding layers. If you have 5 stacked layers, of course your file just grew by another 5 times. Photoshop also stores a composite preview, so that the layered contents are visible in Lightroom and other applications; that adds one more layer. Did you also add any layer masks or additional channels? Each one of those also adds to to the pile of data, although the impact is less since those are grayscale only.

Those are the basics of how a file can balloon from a small raw or JPEG file to a large working TIFF or PSD file. You can make a TIFF file somewhat smaller by:

• Reducing bit depth from 16 bits per channel to 8 bits per channel
• Reducing the pixel dimensions
• Reducing the number of layers, or flattening it
• Applying compression

For TIFF files, Photoshop offers LZW and ZIP compression. I use ZIP because it’s smaller, but it takes a long time to save. To me this is not too bad because Photoshop does background saving, so I simply continue editing while it saves.

Which leads to the final thing. You decide what’s negotiable about how you need to work with your files. Do you require 16 bits per channel, preserving all original pixels losslessly (can’t use JPEG then), and preserving layers? If those are non-negotiable, then all you can do is apply a TIFF lossless compression option. And also, like many of us, budget for enough mass storage so that filling up a volume is not a concern. I use TIFF, and that means I’ll have an eye out for hard drive deals during the holiday sales that are coming up…

[Derek Cross]

Thank you Conrad for an informed and really useful reply.

Would you not agree though, that for everyday workflows, PSD/JPGs are the two most useful formats (good enough and flexible)?

[Vegan Fanatic]

PSD is a photoshop document, JPEG is lossy image format that is fine for final distribution

[Conrad_C]

Hi Derek! This is one of those times when the answer is “it depends.”

If someone wants to keep it simple, PSD is a good default for non-raw master images, and JPEG of course is good for final photos. They are great choices in an Adobe workflow for applications such as InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and After Effects which do useful things with layers in Photoshop format documents, but they don’t all work with layers in TIFF documents.

I use TIFF for master layered images because the file size can be somewhat smaller with ZIP compression, and TIFF can be used directly by more non-Adobe applications support TIFF. But I use PSD when I want other Adobe applications to use the layers.

And of course if the workflow is web design, then PNG becomes one of the primary output formats.

[Vegan Fanatic]

InDesign is used a lot for corporate PDF maketing materials and high quality images are necessary. JPEG cannot provide the quality of datail which is why the standard PSD format is best.

[Derek Cross]

The main reason for placing PSD image files in InDesign is because of the transparancy – transparency (for example for text wrap) Tranparency is not available in JPGs. (See the new InDesign Select Subject text wrap feature in InDesign 2021.)

You can also round trip between layered PSD images in InDesign and Photoshop to undertake further editing, if required.

The difference in quality between TIFFs and uncrompressed JPGs is imperceptible IMO and the smaller file size of JPGs may make them be easier to handle in InDesign in heavily illustrated documents..

[Vegan Fanatic]

I can tell when JPEG is in use with my UHD panel, the artifacts are conspicious. 

[Ivan5EA7]

Thanks!! Very useful response.