TIFF superior over PSD

[StrongBeaver]

Hi, I came across this link.  What interested me was one comment, TIF format is a superior format then PSD.  What is the community opinon on this ? I sorta agree !

Wrong...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?

I hope this helps with your understanding of why ACR/LR has "difficulties" with PSD.

[Chuck Uebele]

Interesting.  I would definately agree with using Tiff for archiving - not sure about a work in progress.

[gener7]

PSD is best for creation in Photoshop and integration with Illustrator and InDesign. Tiff is best for maximum compatibility for example programs that can't properly read PSD, and while tiff can contain layers, it is flattened in cases like printing and archiving.

Gene

[station_two]

Adobe controls (owns) both the PSD and the TIFF format.  It's difficult to believe Adobe has any interest in favoring one format over the other one; but I have great respect for Jeff Schewe.  He would know many things I don't.

I stopped using TIFF out of frustration with how long TIFFs take to save and to open (yes, I've followed Jeff's instructions, but PSDs and PSBs still save and open faster on my machines).  I stick to PSD and PSB.

[StrongBeaver]

I completely forgot about PSB, although it's not widely used. I'll use TIFF if I can over PSD.

[JJMack]

Actually PSB is Photoshop default and all Auto Save recovery files are saved in PSB files Tiff file size limited is low compared to PSB.

[Todd Shaner]

I stopped using PSD when I started using Lightroom. LR requires that layered PSD files be saved with 'Maximize Compatibility,' which adds a flattened copy of the image to the file increasing its size.

I still use PSD with InDesign layouts when  placing images with layers I want to turn  on/off from inside InDesign. Examples are product brochures that have common body text and layout, but different pictures. The PSD file has each product image on a different layer, which I can select from inside the one InDesign file based on the print request. You can't do this with TIFF files.

I'm sure there are other examples of PSD benefits, but 99% of my PS work ends up as a TIFF.

[station_two]

For many of us, LR doesn't exist.

[Trevor.Dennis]

station_two wrote:

For many of us, LR doesn't exist.

Amen to that.  Real Photoshopers don't do Lightroom.

[Todd Shaner]

I've been using PS since 1996 and currently use Design Standard CS6, Lightroom 5, and numerous other non-Adobe apps. I use Bridge to manage all my project assets, but  my camera raw images are processed and cataloged in LR.

I assume both of you are also photographers so what you do use for your camera image processing and have you actually tried using LR? I am interested in your responses because of numerous issues I encountered with LR5 and lack of improvements to its other modules.

[JJMack]

I do not use LR or the Bridge for organizing my images the OS file system is OK by me. Both LR and Bridge have some performance penalties when you first bring images into them. Lightroom needs to import then into its Library databases recording  infotmation and thumbnail into them.  Bridge also sort of imports images into its cache which can be centralize or distributed into your image folders. Once in a while I may use the bridge as a metadata editor.  LR is not an image editor it more and image developer with some local adjustment. You need an image editor if you wish ro remove objects or make a composite where you add objects. If you use Photoshop and open RAW file into it as smart objects and you want to adjust it ACR will open not LR. Also in Photoshop CC ACR is a filter the can be use one any later.  I do not need two  user GUI for Adobe RAW Conversion Engine. In fact I prefer one.

If your a Photographer and you shoot in a studio LR may well fill all your needs. All three programs have their place. In reality Photoshop is all I need.

I just hope Adobe see the market place is segment in the major area Home, Small Business and the corporations. That the home and many small business have no need for Adobe suite. All they want is what Adobe is now calling Photoshop for Photographer. That Adobe make that affordable for the masses. Photoshop is a bargain when you consider the cost of you equipment an print consumables.  I spend more on Photo Paper and Ink then I do for my digital darkroom.  Photoshop is a monster. Most users only use a small subset of the beast. It cost Adobe a fortune to maintain Photoshop and evolve it.  But when you only use a small subset you do not want to pay to the Cadillac when your using the Ford parts that go into the Caddy. There is money to be made selling the ford to the masses.  Adobe please keep Photoshop a bargain....

[Trevor.Dennis]

JJMack wrote:

If your a Photographer and you shoot in a studio LR may well fill all your needs. All three programs have their place. In reality Photoshop is all I need.

I read that and though it a good point. Then I thought again, and realized that while Studio work is well enough controlled to need almost no editing regards exposure, it is likely to need a lot of the sort of editing only doable in Photoshop.  Models need retouching, and product work needs lots of fine tuning, and at the very least, clients usually want a cut out to use in web pages and advertizing layouts, so that precludes LR.

The job I covered over the weekend involved bright sunshine one minute to heavy overcast the next, shooting under cover and outside using two cameras constantly changing my position and shooting angle.  I find it pretty much impossible to batch process that sort of job, so LR would have no advantage over Bridge and ACR.   (These are the non equestrian shots from one day of the same job last year.)

[Trevor.Dennis]

trshaner wrote:

I've been using PS since 1996 and currently use Design Standard CS6, Lightroom 5, and numerous other non-Adobe apps. I use Bridge to manage all my project assets, but  my camera raw images are processed and cataloged in LR.

I assume both of you are also photographers so what you do use for your camera image processing and have you actually tried using LR? I am interested in your responses because of numerous issues I encountered with LR5 and lack of improvements to its other modules.

Yes I am a professional photographer, and though the bulk of my work is commercial product type shots, I do several events every year which might involve >1000 shots to process.  I bought and paid for LR3, and have installed LR5 through a CC subscription, but I just don't get on with it, and prefer to use Bridge and ACR.  The biggest issue for me is the LR interface which while similar to ACR, I find does not flow so nicely.  Plus I might like to use a PS edit in about 5 to 10% of the images.  My system was built for NLE with Prem Pro, and I have no delay states in my Bridge/PS workflow, so I like working this way.

For cataloguing my DAM is to name each job with ‘yyyy_mm_dd meaningful name’ and use the excellent Windows 7 search facility to locate the folder and files.  I don’t use tags, but do give shots a star rating in Bridge, although I find Bridge too slow to use as a primary search tool.   I used to sometimes resort to searching my flickr stream for images, which would give me a date taken so I could find the folder containing that image on my system, but flickr is now next to useless since they ruined the UI.

[station_two]

trshaner wrote:

…I assume both of you are also photographers so what you do use for your camera image processing…?

Photoshop, of course.  What a bizarre question…

trshaner wrote:

…and have you actually tried using LR…

Of course I did.  I hated it.  I detested the libraries-like paradigm and the interface.  More importantly, there's absolutely nothing you can do to a single image in LR that you cannot do in Photoshop, while there are a gazillion things that you can do to an image in Photoshop that you couldn't even dream of doing in LR.

[Trevor.Dennis]

Are you sure about that Station? ISTR a recent mention of LR5 having a feature that PS and ACR does not.   Just tried a quick Google and couldn't find anything though.

[Noel Carboni]

I've never found any love for LightRoom either.  I don't feel a need to abstract the storage and maintenance of my files into a database.

For me I integrate everything on my Windows system with Explorer, using a subdirectory organization process to keep them all straight.  I open raw images in Camera Raw and process them to whatever needs I have in Photoshop.  The one thing I don't have a strong need for is to run through a whole lot of images quickly; I'm more of a "quality over quantity" type of image processor.

I know I'm not really mainstream in my thinking, but it works great for me.

-Noel

[D Fosse]

station_two wrote:

there's absolutely nothing you can do to a single image in LR that you cannot do in Photoshop, while there are a gazillion things that you can do to an image in Photoshop that you couldn't even dream of doing in LR.

Correct, but missing the point. Lightroom is about workflow organizing. You'll learn to appreciate that when you process several hundreds of shots, on a tight deadline, on a daily basis. If you do one by one, correct, there's no point in Lightroom.

And there's another thing. I'll make myself the most unpopular person on this forum with this, but I think I can handle it. Here's something I recently wrote on the Lr forum:

If you consider yourself primarily a photographer, sticking to Lightroom only will probably improve your work. The problem with Photoshop is that it becomes all too tempting to think "I'll fix that later" instead of getting the shot right to begin with.

If you take a look over in the PS forum you'll see lots of threads like "how do I remove these reflections", "how do I clean up this shot", or the all-out "how do I fix this picture". In all cases, almost without exception, the answer is take ten minutes extra and do it right the first time...Photoshop encourages laziness and bad habits, by its very nature.

<ducking and running>

[Trevor.Dennis]

in future I'll ask the world to stop while I set up my tripod, arrange several scrims and reflectors to fix the sun not cooperating with the shot, and ask the subjects to keep that perfect expression on their faces while doing all that.

[station_two]

twenty_one wrote:

…correct, there's no point in Lightroom…

This is the only part of your post that makes any sense, and it is of course taken out of context.

I make photographs, I don't do mug shots or product shots; I don't consider myself an archivist, a filing clerk or an administrative assistant.

[Todd Shaner]

Thank you all for your responses. I wasn't trying to stir up a PS vs LR fire-storm, merely trying to understand how others who don't use LR work.

I started my career in design engineering in 1968 and did all of my computer work in IBM 360 assembly language using IBM punch cards and paper tape. I also developed an interest in professional photography around the same time. I have plenty of experience doing things at the "nuts-and-bolts" level, but as a design engineer I was tasked with making things that worked faster and cost less a la Moore's Law.

My first experience with PS was in the mid-1990s, when I changed careers and moved into sales & marketing. The company I worked for was MacWarehouse, the largest seller of Apple aftermarket equipment and the call-center for Apple Direct. We worked very closely with Apple, Adobe, Microsoft and other major software developers who all offered reseller purchase programs. Needless to say I had access to and used just about every single graphics application available. I moved into technical product marketing in 2002 and was tasked with creating brochures, catalogs and other marketing literature using Acrobat, InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop.

My point is that when LR was introduced in 2007 I jumped on it and haven't regretted spending less time using PS since. With all its warts LR is a very time-efficient, fairly well organized, all-in-one DAM. There are many things LR can't do, but the gap has closed significantly between LR1.0 and LR5.2.

I would love to see Adobe create a  "professional" version of LR that included ALL the CC apps integrated under one seamless GUI along with an efficient and useful version of Bridge for organization. Don't say it isn't possible–The first computer system I worked on in 1968 was a six-foot tall 19" rack with a whopping 64KB of core memory and no mass storage (AKA disk drive)!

[bob frost]

trshaner wrote:

I stopped using PSD when I started using Lightroom. LR requires that layered PSD files be saved with 'Maximize Compatibility,' which adds a flattened copy of the image to the file increasing its size.

I thought tiffs also had a flattened version inside, they just don't offer one without?

I would use tiffs if it were easier to save a zipped version (with the layers also zipped - otherwise the tifs can be bigger than psds).

Bob Frost

[Todd Shaner]

All I can tell you is that PSD's with 'Maximize Compatibilty' are always larger than TIFFs with ZIP Image and Layer compression.

It's unfortunate that even Image Processor Pro does not have an option to save TIFFs with Layer comprression, just Image compression. I created a PS Action to save TIFF files with ZIP Image and Layer compression settings applied.

[bob frost]

I'd like to switch to using tiffs, but I use LR to take my images into CC, and although you can choose to zip tifs in LR, it doesn't seem to zip the layers, so when the file comes back it is much bigger than a psd. Saving it manually in CC is tedious as you have to synchronise to retrieve it in LR. How do you create an action to do it that doesn't include saving as a particular filename?

Bob Frost

[Todd Shaner]

There was a similar request to convert PSD files to TIFFs with Image & Layer ZIP compression, so I modified it here for use with LR 'Edit In Photoshop.'

ZIP Compress Lightroom 'Edit In Photoshop' Layered TIFFs with Image and Layer Compression

You can do this using a PS Action with an Automate> Batch command to process ‘Open Files’ in PS, a folder, or folder tree with subfolders that contain the files needing ZIP compression.

Create the Action

1) Send a file from Lightroom to Photoshop using ‘Edit In Photoshop.’

2) Open the Actions panel and click on the 'Create New Action' button, name it something like 'Save As TIFF with ZIP+ZIP,' and hit the Record button.

3) Next go to File> Save As> Select Format 'TIFF,' select Image Compression ZIP, Layer Compression ZIP, Save Transparency, and any other settings you want to use,  click OK.

4) Hit the square 'Stop Action' button.

Automate Batch Processing

1) Go to File> Automate> Batch

2) Select the action just created (Save As TIFF ZIP+ZIP) in the 'Action' drop-down list if not already selected.

3) Under 'Source' select ‘Open Files’ to process ‘Edit In PS’ files. You could also select a specific folder, or a top level folder with subfolders that contain the files you want to process. Also check 'Include Subfolders' if you want the subfolders to be processed.

4) Check 'Override Action "Save As" Commands' so that it ignores the filename and destination folder used to create the action.

5) If you want the files to be saved in the same folder as the original LR file set ‘Destination’ to ‘Save and Close.’

5) Click OK to start the batch process.

6) The PS processed TIFF file(s) will appear inside LR in the same folder as the original file.

Create Keyboard Shortcut

  Go to Edit> Keyboard Shortcuts> Application Menus> File> Automate> Batch and assign an unused Keyboard Shortcut, which you can use in the future. I used ‘CTRL + /’

[Herbert2001]

It is stated that psb files can only be loaded up by Photoshop - not entirely true. Photoline can also open and save psb files. I have opened 10GB psb files in Photoline without a problem.

The problem with tiff is that it is limited to up to 4gb for a file. A truly open format that supports 8/16/32bpc and layered files beyond 30.000 pixels would be OpenEXR - unfortunately Photoshop does not natively support multi-layered EXR files. Ironically, Photoline does support this out of the box.

StrongBeaver wrote:

Hi, I came across this link.  What interested me was one comment, TIF format is a superior format then PSD.  What is the community opinon on this ? I sorta agree !

Wrong...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?

I hope this helps with your understanding of why ACR/LR has "difficulties" with PSD.