PSD or TIFF

[Jay Gould]

I have a thread running regarding RAW storage while traveling

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=337541#post337541

and that has caused me to post the following which I have now made into a new thread to expand the possibility that others will participate.



Hi Jay. Sounds like you have a good plan here! I haven't read every post here but I will add that the only thing that might foul you up is if you have shooting down time and you start working on images with PS and saving layers (photomerges, HDR'S, OOTB stuff, etc) you may start gobbling up storage space! Sound like a great trip for you coming up!

Dan, between you and the other posters you guys are making me nervous about storage! I am seriously considering buying two Toshiba 500gb HDs. They are only $92/free shipping; I have always relied upon Toshiba products.

The storage thing again raises for me the question of PSD compared to TIFF. TIFF files are so much larger; I have never received an adequate answer why those that use PSD which is an Adobe proprietary are not concerned that it might not be viable in the future. I have also never received what I consider to be an adequate answer why those that use TIFF which is megabytes larger are so afraid that PSD will be gone in the future when Photoshop is here to stay at least in my lifetime.

Is there ANYTHING that can't be done with a PSD that can be done with a TIFF?

I know, I am hijacking my own thread.Is there a truly good answer to the TIFF/PSD debate? My brother uses PSD and he has read most of what has been written on this topic here on BPN and he continues to urge me to go the PSD route. Yet, so many top professionals here on BPN use TIFF as the storage file type. Perhaps a new thought will emerge!

[Lance Peters]

Hi Jay - IMHO --- Tif is so much more flexible - it can be opened and edited with any number of free image viewers were PSD requires you to have Photoshop. Also a TIF file can be printed pretty much anywhere - maybe not so with a PSD - although these days with less people printing this is probably no biggie.

To my way of thinking it does not make a lot of sense to be saving your images in a Proprietary format - who knows what the future may hold. I save in tif - storage is cheap so not really worried about the space savings offered by a Proprietary format.

Just my two cents ;)

[Charles Glatzer]

Jay,

Many Pros and I use PSD to designate working files with unflattened layers, etc and TIFF for finalized images...meaning sized, output sharpened, ready to print, web post, etc.

It keeps the files distinct and easily recognizable.


Best,

Chas

[Jay Gould]

Jay,

Many Pros and I use PSD to designate working files with unflattened layers, etc and TIFF for finalized images...meaning sized, output sharpened, ready to print, web post, etc.

It keeps the files distinct and easily recognizable.

Best,

Chas

Does that mean that you keep your original CR2 while you are working on a file, and during the working process you keep your work copy as a PSD. When you have completed working the file you save the final image as a TIFF. Do you also continue to save the CR2 or does the finalized TIFF replace the CR2?

Isn't it correct that once you flatten etc the PSD into a TIFF, you can no longer work that TIFF.

Are you saving both the TIFF and the CR2 in case you want to rework the image with new software etc. sometime in the future? That would mean saving two very large files.

Thanks,

[Cliff Beittel]

Jay,

Whether you have a TIFF or PSD or both, I would never discard the RAW file. Yes, there may be new and better conversion software in the future, but there are many other reasons to rework images. One example: using too much too Clarity initially caused halos around the heads of white birds in some of my images. I just reworked a couple of those today, and while I was at it I made other changes that produced better looking images. There's a learning curve with any software; being able to go back and rework a RAW file without losing any pixels is one of the great advantages of working in RAW.

[Charles Glatzer]

Jay,

Yes, I always save the RAW file. You can-rework if necessary a TIFF file, but it may be best to go back to the working file if the tweak is substantial, especially sharpening.

I may end up with a number of finalized TIFF files at various sizes.

Tip- use Smart Filters with sharpening layers for more working file flexibility.

Best,

Chas

[Jay Gould]

Thanks everyone, for me the debate is over. I am going to follow Chas' recommendations and duplicate the CR2 as a PSD working file and when I finish the job save as a TIFF alongside the original CR2.

I am not going to utilize the DNG route because ultimately I guess we do not want to be tied to any proprietary format beyond the CR2. That does mean that every file has an XMP sidecar file. Is that what you are doing?

[Mike Tracy]

Another reason to save the original raw file is that some competitions will request it as you proceed through the judging.

[Doug Brown]

There's a learning curve with any software; being able to go back and rework a RAW file without losing any pixels is one of the great advantages of working in RAW.

Couldn't agree more Chas. I find myself reworking old images with some regularity. As I refine my technique over time, I look at some of my old images and wonder what I was thinking when I processed them! :D Saving the RAW file lets me go back to the drawing board. It's not just technique that improves; RAW processing software also improves with each new generation.

[Mike Milicia]

I find myself reworking old images with some regularity. As I refine my technique over time, I look at some of my old images and wonder what I was thinking when I processed them! :D

Been there ... doing that right now!

I have found that CS4 ACR with its new Camera Standard Profiles has dramatically improved
my ability to get the color balance right and avoid oversaturation in reds and yellows.

[Jay Gould]

Another reason to save the original raw file is that some competitions will request it as you proceed through the judging.

Does that mean that if you - before any PP - convert to DNG they will not accept that as the "original"?

Those saving original CR2 files, whenever you move them you to a new location you have to move the XMP too; it doesn't move automatically, does it?!

[Mike Milicia]

Does that mean that if you - before any PP - convert to DNG they will not accept that as the "original"?
DNG is just another format for RAW data so should satisfy any contest requirements.



Those saving original CR2 files, whenever you move them you to a new location you have to move the XMP too; it doesn't move automatically, does it?!Photoshop (or any other "xmp aware" application) will only show the RAW file but whenever the RAW file is moved
or copied using the application's interface, the xmp will automatically go along with it.
If you are using the OS interface to directly move the RAW and/or xmp, they are treated as separate files so yes, you would have to explicitly move them together if you want them to stay together.

[Jay Gould]

Thanks all, did a bit more research and found the following video by J. Kost - Adobe Genius!!

http://www.workshopsondemand.com/ps_lightroom/s06/

Makes some very good points why to convert to DNG including the fact that CR2 is Canon proprietary and DNG is an open source format.

DNG does result in a slightly smaller filer and NO xmp sidecar file.

[Roger Clark]

Some Notes:

While photoshop *.psd is a proprietary format, it is recognized by other image processing systems. But it is possible that adobe, with some future management decision, could make it difficult to read older psd formats (microsoft is doing that with word processing formats). Adobe forced upgrades to CS4by not supporting new camera raw conversion in CS3. Will they start dropping formats if 20 years as the number of formats grows to a large number? After all, maintaining formats takes effort and thus money.

Tif is an open standard. 16-bit tif files are a true 16-bit (16-bit unsigned integer). Photoshop 16-bit files are 16-bit signed integer and since camera data are positive integers you only have 15-bits. This will become a greater problem as digital camera data get more precise.

I don't use dng format (yet). I do wish camera manufacturers would adopt an open sandard and stop inventing proprietary formats. To insulate myself I archive copies of DCRAW, including source code to be sure I can always read raw files.

I save working results in psd format but save all final work as 16-bit tif (occasionally 8-bit tif).

I do some astronomy images as stacked images, sometimes averaging dozens of images. I work in 32-bit and save files in 32-bit floating point FITS format (an astronomy open source format).

The question I ask is will I or family after me be able to read my images? I have family images from the 1860s. Will my images be readable in 150 years? Probably with tif, not sure if photoshop.

Regarding raw, it is possible to take any image and convert it to raw format. I'm not sure if such software exists, but it would not be hard to create. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been done so someone could enter doctored images in a contest. Or perhaps it has been done and not detected yet. The basic code exists to assemble the tool, e.g. jhead and dcraw give most/all the details.

Roger

[Mike Tracy]

Regarding raw, it is possible to take any image and convert it to raw format. I'm not sure if such software exists, but it would not be hard to create. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been done so someone could enter doctored images in a contest. Or perhaps it has been done and not detected yet. The basic code exists to assemble the tool, e.g. jhead and dcraw give most/all the details.

Roger

This has been a concern of law enforcement and is why they have been slow to embrace digital capturing. A defense can't raise questions of authenticity when submitted photographic evidence is backed by a film negative or color slide.

[Mike Tracy]

Does that mean that if you - before any PP - convert to DNG they will not accept that as the "original"?


Not sure. The requests I have received have only made reference to raw files.

[Charles Glatzer]

FYI- I may be mistaken, but if I remember correctly the TIFF format was originated and still owned by Adobe. It is why some in the editorial industry prefer not to use layered TIFF images. We can go on and on. I am not a proponent for changing all RAW files to DNG.

Chas

[Roger Clark]

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format

It was not developed by Adobe, but they recently bought the company that did. It is an open specification as is DNG.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

This has been a concern of law enforcement and is why they have been slow to embrace digital capturing. A defense can't raise questions of authenticity when submitted photographic evidence is backed by a film negative or color slide.

Hmm, film photos have been doctored for centuries. It is easy to make a slide of anything, not really much harder than a manipulated digital image, especially these days.

Isn't it common for the photographer to appear in court to verify the authenticity of any photo?

Roger

[Charles Glatzer]

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format

It was not developed by Adobe, but they recently bought the company that did. It is an open specification as is DNG.

Roger

Thanks for the clarification. What if Adobe decides to restrict access, unless of course there was something written into the acquisition. Wonder why ADOBE would want it. Perhaps, there will be some proprietary restructuring of the format.

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Thanks for the clarification. What if Adobe decides to restrict access, unless of course there was something written into the acquisition. Wonder why ADOBE would want it. Perhaps, there will be some proprietary restructuring of the format.

Chas

Chas,
Adobe bought Aldus for other technology and the tif copyright came with it.
I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, the tif specifications was published for all to use and the copyright owner has never charges a licensing fee for tif, so I don't believe they can now. Similarly, Adobe has published the dng format and is not charging license fees. Once a company (or individual) does that, they can't suddenly start charging a fee. They could, however, change the format, perhaps adding a new feature, and start charging fees. I doubt if that would work with tif because the format was so flexible that all kinds of things have been done beyond the original (or current) specification. It makes good business sense to get everyone to use a standard format, because the more formats you have, the more it will cost to maintain. That is probably why Adobe published the dng format as an open standard, hoping camera manufacturers would adopt it and then Adobe would have to support fewer raw formats.

There was a case a few years ago where the copyright owner of the gif format said they wanted to start charging licensing fees. Does anyone know what happened? Microsoft tried the same thing with the FAT16 and FAT32 file system formats, so when you bought a USB memory stick or compact flash card, you would have to pay a licensing fee. Perhaps we are doing that and part of that cost for memory cards is a licensing fee. But I never heard if these companies were able to charge fees after years of it being an open standard.

It is for these reasons (companies controlling access to data) that I use open systems and archive source code so I can read data. I have data and software going back to the 1970s that I can still read (and still gets used).

Roger

[Charles Glatzer]

Roger,

Appreciate the input, thanks.

Agreed, that is why I mentioned restructuring of the format. I was recently told by an editor that the magazine graphic depatment would prefer no one internally use or photogs send in layered TIFF files for fear of the above. Perhaps, paranoia on there part. My point to all this is, none of us really know what the future holds regarding formats, better extraction software, etc. SAVE THOSE RAW FILES!!!!

Chas

[Aravind Krishnaswamy]

The TIFF format is meant to be a generic container file format. In fact when you save a Photoshop file as a TIFF with the option to save layers checked off, it will save all the Photoshop data (smart objects, adjustment layers, everything) such that when you re-open that TIFF you get everything back. The reason that TIFFs can sometimes be larger than a PSD with the same content is two fold:

1. Compression may not have been turned on for the TIFF
2. In the TIFF, a composit image of your document is always saved (where as with a PSD a composit image is only saved if you enable 'maximize compatibility').

Regarding the DNG debate, I personally see little reason to covert my Canon CR2s to DNG. The CR2 format isn't going anywhere soon anyway and if it does someday then on that day I'll convert. The only advantage I see to DNG is that the file size can be smaller because of some smarter compression. However the major disadvantage is the inability to use Canon's DPP software on the RAW if some day I decide I want to try converting the file with DPP (there are situations where DPP produces better output).