I found some older (2019) discussions of using TIF files as output from Photoshop. And in a couple webinars it's been said that we should switch to using TIFs because they can have layers and don't have to turn on Maximize Compatibility and yada yada... So I did a little testing to see how great the space savings would be 'cause storage may be "cheap" but it ain't free and if I can save some hundreds of GB it's worth it... Ordinary PC, i7-5820 @ 4.1 GHz, 32GB memory, Everything on SSD, AMD 5700XT GPU, PS 22.2.0I’m hoping I’m missing something simple and dumb… D500 image 5568x3712, 29MBBasic edits in Lightroom then the RAW into Photoshop. Single hue/sat adjustment layer added. “Max” is maximize compatibility.ConfigurationCreate TimeSize in MBPSD flattened/comp/max1165PSD 2 layers/comp/max7265TIF flattened/None1166TIF flattened ZIP31112TIF 2 layers/ZIP/ZIP36212 Since I can’t use PSD files without having maximize compatibility, and turning compression off seemed silly, there wasn’t much point in getting sizes for either of those. If I’m understanding what I see,A flattened TIF and a flattened PSD are about the same size. 166,165. And about the same time to save.A flattened TIF with ZIP compression is about 1/3 smaller but takes an extra THIRTY SECONDS to compress. And I don’t save flattened files.A layered PSD with a second layer is about 265 MB and a layered TIF with 2 layers is about 20% smaller but takes an extra THIRTY SECONDS to compress. Added a 2nd layer with a layer mask, overlay mode, 50% gray fill and 25 px gaussian blur – it’s not actually going to do much but it’ll be handy later…ConfigurationCreate TimeSize in MBPSD 3 layers/comp/max8267TIF 3 layers/ZIP/ZIP38214 Nothing much changes. A little larger for the second layer I’m guessing. A more real-world situation: Convert to Smart Object, get rid of layer with the gaussian blur, create Smart Filter on the Smart Object for blur. Basically take the blur layer and put it in the Smart Object.ConfigurationCreate TimeSize in MBPSD/comp/max11527TIF None/RLE2803TIF ZIP/RLE32749TIF ZIP/ZIP36580 The Smart Object makes the PSD size almost double (97% increase).The TIF file, even BEST case using ZIP for the file and the layers, appears to be about 10% larger than the PSD file. I did a test with a D850 image (8256x5504 px): Did some content aware fill for cleanup, convert to smart object, do a round trip to ACR, then take the cleanup layers and smart object and combine into a group. Do a Hue/Saturation layer on the group.ConfigurationCreate TimeSize in MBTIF ZIP/ZIP251382PSD/comp/max251177 The TIF and PSD generate in about the same time (the TIF is FASTER then with a much simpler image - why?), but the TIF, even with ZIP on the layers and the file, is about 20% larger than the equivalent PSD.And if I make the processing more complex – take the group and make it a Smart Object, then add layers, do a Shadows/Highlights in the new Smart Object and maybe a Stamp Visible, it gets worse… The TIF is still larger, but it’ll process in about 48 seconds where the PSD got up to 90 seconds and needs a PSB file. But the TIF is right about 3GB and the PSB is about 2.5 GB. I’ve got to be missing something significant ‘cause at the moment I don’t see a big upside to using a TIF as my regular Photoshop output.

Inspiring

Question

Using TIF as regular Photoshop Output

Forum|Forum|5 years ago
February 27, 2021
7 replies
1893 views

I found some older (2019) discussions of using TIF files as output from Photoshop. And in a couple webinars it's been said that we should switch to using TIFs because they can have layers and don't have to turn on Maximize Compatibility and yada yada... So I did a little testing to see how great the space savings would be 'cause storage may be "cheap" but it ain't free and if I can save some hundreds of GB it's worth it...

Ordinary PC, i7-5820 @ 4.1 GHz, 32GB memory, Everything on SSD, AMD 5700XT GPU, PS 22.2.0

I’m hoping I’m missing something simple and dumb…

D500 image 5568x3712, 29MB

Basic edits in Lightroom then the RAW into Photoshop. Single hue/sat adjustment layer added. “Max” is maximize compatibility.

Configuration	Create Time	Size in MB
PSD flattened/comp/max	1	165
PSD 2 layers/comp/max	7	265
TIF flattened/None	1	166
TIF flattened ZIP	31	112
TIF 2 layers/ZIP/ZIP	36	212

Since I can’t use PSD files without having maximize compatibility, and turning compression off seemed silly, there wasn’t much point in getting sizes for either of those. If I’m understanding what I see,

A flattened TIF and a flattened PSD are about the same size. 166,165. And about the same time to save.
A flattened TIF with ZIP compression is about 1/3 smaller but takes an extra THIRTY SECONDS to compress. And I don’t save flattened files.
A layered PSD with a second layer is about 265 MB and a layered TIF with 2 layers is about 20% smaller but takes an extra THIRTY SECONDS to compress.

Added a 2nd layer with a layer mask, overlay mode, 50% gray fill and 25 px gaussian blur – it’s not actually going to do much but it’ll be handy later…

Configuration	Create Time	Size in MB
PSD 3 layers/comp/max	8	267
TIF 3 layers/ZIP/ZIP	38	214

Nothing much changes. A little larger for the second layer I’m guessing.

A more real-world situation: Convert to Smart Object, get rid of layer with the gaussian blur, create Smart Filter on the Smart Object for blur. Basically take the blur layer and put it in the Smart Object.

Configuration	Create Time	Size in MB
PSD/comp/max	11	527
TIF None/RLE	2	803
TIF ZIP/RLE	32	749
TIF ZIP/ZIP	36	580

The Smart Object makes the PSD size almost double (97% increase).

The TIF file, even BEST case using ZIP for the file and the layers, appears to be about 10% larger than the PSD file.

I did a test with a D850 image (8256x5504 px): Did some content aware fill for cleanup, convert to smart object, do a round trip to ACR, then take the cleanup layers and smart object and combine into a group. Do a Hue/Saturation layer on the group.

Configuration	Create Time	Size in MB
TIF ZIP/ZIP	25	1382
PSD/comp/max	25	1177

The TIF and PSD generate in about the same time (the TIF is FASTER then with a much simpler image - why?), but the TIF, even with ZIP on the layers and the file, is about 20% larger than the equivalent PSD.

And if I make the processing more complex – take the group and make it a Smart Object, then add layers, do a Shadows/Highlights in the new Smart Object and maybe a Stamp Visible, it gets worse… The TIF is still larger, but it’ll process in about 48 seconds where the PSD got up to 90 seconds and needs a PSB file. But the TIF is right about 3GB and the PSB is about 2.5 GB.

I’ve got to be missing something significant ‘cause at the moment I don’t see a big upside to using a TIF as my regular Photoshop output.

This topic has been closed for replies.

Stephen Marsh

Community Expert

From 2007:

https://www.ledet.com/margulis/2008HTM/ACT07-psd_and_TIFF.htm

D

DavePinMinnAuthor

Inspiring

OK... So, the short answer I was looking for is - No.

In normal circumstances, there's no overwhelming reason to save Photoshop output as a TIF. Normal people are not going to turn off psd compression because they want to conserve space. Just like when the capture the images in their cameras, they don't turn off the lossless compression. I'm sure there are some, but everyone with whom I'm familiar doesn't store D850, uncompressed RAW images, nor do they store uncompressed psd files.

There's nothing wrong with storing as compressed TIF files, but they're extremely slow to create, and I never got a response to the question about tools, settings or preferences that would significantly speed up that process.

So until Adobe massively speeds up Photoshop TIF compression, probably "No".

D Fosse

Community Expert

"doesn't store D850, uncompressed RAW images, nor do they store uncompressed psd files".

Well, again, I do, and I don't think I'm that unusual. Not D850, but Sony a7riii about the same size.

To me, spending 45 seconds to save a big file is not an option, not when I can do it in 5. I don't have time for that. I gladly turn off compression and don't care about the extra space. With all those terabytes I need to manage, it's moot. A little less doesn't really matter - I've used that up in three days anyway.

And compressing raw files is completely out of the question. I don't want anything or anyone messing with my sensor data.

Ussnorway7605025

Legend

Adobe has switched Photoshop over to metal drivers which means a 3D model made today will not look good in older builds and it also means all your old Fuse models stored in your personal creative library files need repair now but even if we can take that out of the mix and just say I'm sending you (my client) a new design and I know you have the same build as me, it's still better to send you a Tiff, Png or Jpg because that gives you the rendored image you are paying for... The Psd is effectively my working out and it doesn't include all the files because they are in my temporary folder where Photoshop likes to work from

This forum has people learning so some of us get used to giving them more than just the answer but in a hire / client senario I don't give up the files normally

D Fosse

Community Expert

But all these arguments assume that you are sending out your master files. My argument is that you never do that, master files never leave your machine. You send out specially purposed copies, and these copies are usually TIFFs for compatibility and wider support. Or jpeg if bandwidth is restricted.

Ussnorway7605025

Legend

Tiff is a standard and therefore does not change but Psd is Adobes file system and it does change

If I send you a Psd file you will be able to open it but what you actually see will depend on which build of Photoshop \ 3rd party software you used

D Fosse

Community Expert

No. A PSD will not change according to your Photoshop version. What do you base that on?

Obviously, a file made in a new Photoshop version may not be handled correctly in an old one, if it has properties that didn't exist in the older one. But that is irrespective of file format, that would happen to TIFFs as well as PSDs.

rob day

Community Expert

And in a couple webinars it's been said that we should switch to using TIFs because they can have layers

PSDs also have an advantage in a page layout, InDesign lets you hide and show a PSD’s layers without editing the original. And you don’t have to explicitly set transparency in a save dialog—transparency is always true.

D

DavePinMinnAuthor

Inspiring

Thanks for the replies. They’re all great, but don’t answer the question I asked…

I’m seeing discussions and broadcasts that tell us to stop saving Photoshop files as PSD because TIFs are SMALLER and FASTER and more widely usable, and not proprietary. Except I tried the smallest file I have with only ONE adjustment layer – so about the simplest possible layered image, and yes, it’s a little smaller, but it takes FOREVER to get the TIF saved.

And I tried a couple files doing real processing, with Smart Objects and layers, and there’s not even any SPACE savings with the TIF to help offset the huge amount of time to save it.

SO, if it’s not massively smaller, and at least as fast to save as a PSD, why the recommendation to save Photoshop output as TIF files?

Is there some preference or something that enables Photoshop to generate layered TIFs a WHOLE LOT faster?

D Fosse

Community Expert

The fastest save/open is uncompressed files, whether PSD or TIFF. What takes time is the compression/decompression, and any differences are down to different compression algorithms.

Like Dave, I keep the master file archive as uncompressed PSDs. Master files don't need compatibility, only you will handle them.

When I send out full size files, I send TIFF copies, becuase they can be used anywhere.

davescm

Community Expert

"..........and turning compression off seemed silly"

That is exactly what I do. Turning off compression gives a faster save and load time (the file does not need to be compressed and decompressed). You are right in that disk space is not free, but neither is time. I agree with D.Fosse - provide your system with the resources it needs to run efficiently.

Dave

c.pfaffenbichler

Community Expert

Also … converting Layers to Smart Objects will create psb, so that would compress like psd anyway.

And it increases filesize by virtue of being (basically) threefold:

• the actual SO

• the SO’s preview (if it is not flattened) at full size

• the instance(s) as displayed in the Layers Panel (with the tranformations and filter applied)

Comparing different image compression methods is difficult to say the least; the resulting size reductions can vary considerably based on the image content.

D Fosse

Community Expert

The first and most important rule in any kind of serious Photoshop work:

Stop worrying about file sizes.

It's a lost battle from the start. Your files will be big, you will have a lot of them, and your disks will fill up.

When your disks fill up, get more and bigger ones. It's the cheapest, simplest and safest solution. I haven't had a disk failure in twelve years. I replace them before they fail.

Not only that, but you should have complete backup of everything. That's all of the above, all over again.

I'm getting close to 50 terabytes of total disk space by now, including three copies of every file, most of it duplicated over two desktop machines, plus several external drives.

Aside from that PSD or TIFF is basically your choice. They both support the full extent of Photoshop functions and features.

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.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded