After RAW conversion, does it matter if I save my files as TIFF or PSD? I've used TIFF for years, but have recently read that PSD is preferable. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Tiff vs. PSD
After RAW conversion, does it matter if I save my files as TIFF or PSD? I've used TIFF for years, but have recently read that PSD is preferable. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Anita- I have used both formats but have recently moved more over to PSD format because it saves Photoshop-specific features of your image, for example a saved selection. It could be argued that TIFF is more universal than PSD but if you are are Photoshop user I don't see this as an important difference. TIFF offers some compression features but I think they are lossless- in other words you will not lose image quality with either format (contrast this with JPEG where you apparently do lose IQ on each open and save. I admit to not doing a controlled comparison of files sizes with each format but my hunch is that TIFF produces bigger files.
My two cents is that TIFF is readable with many types of software where as PSD is Adobe only. I've also read alot about using DNG as a file type for the future but I'm not sure. We'll see what the real experts say here (I believe this subject has been well covered in past threads also).
Anita,Originally Posted by Anita Bower
Greetings. I switched from PSD to TIFF when it appeared that what I was saving (flattened, no additional state) the file sizes were about the same. TIFF is readable by many applications and a published standard while PSD is not. That means TIFF works best for me. Saving additional state such as layers works also for TIFF, but as with PSD, the file sizes are prohibitively large (IMO). I would use PSD if there were a compelling reason to, such as, PSD's integrate well with other apps in the Creative Suite. If I commonly used my images in these other apps, I might switch to PSDs.
ymmv.
Cheers,
-Michael-
PSD used to offer many advantages in the past but they have all been equaled by the newest TIFF specification and especially since Adobe now owns TIFF (copyright).
Robert
So for example, TIFF will save a selection in Ps? (I've never tried this before). What about layer masks, smart objects?
My working files are saved as PSD, my sized finals are saved as TIFF. The specific designations make it essay for me to discern file status.
Chas
Last edited by Charles Glatzer; 08-13-2010 at 12:06 AM.
John,
Greetings. Selections, Layers w/masks, smart objects, smart filters, adjustment layers are all savable in TIFF. Not sure what you can't save in TIFF. Of course, just a few layers & such turns that 14MB raw file into hundreds of MBs, for either TIFF or PSD.
Cheers,
-Michael-
Oh, hey. A sample size of one: 13MB original raw with a curves adjustment layer (includes mask), a find edges smart filter, and a selection turns into a 410MB TIFF but only a 320MB PSD (even with max compatibility). Flattened versions sans selections are 70MB for PSD and 82MB for TIFF.
I guess there is a size advantage (more so if you save unflattened files).
Cheers,
-Michael-
My working files are saved as PSD, my sized finals are saved as TIFF. The specific designations make it essay for me to discern file status.
Chas
Didnt think about using it that way Chas, good point!
Robert
John,
Greetings. Selections, Layers w/masks, smart objects, smart filters, adjustment layers are all savable in TIFF. Not sure what you can't save in TIFF. Of course, just a few layers & such turns that 14MB raw file into hundreds of MBs, for either TIFF or PSD.
Cheers,
-Michael-
There is one thing that cant be saved in TIFF that you can save with PSD. If i remember correctly it was something like a cropped PSD file out of ACR. That is it as far as I know.
Robert
As Michael illustrated, psd format seems to compress layers automatically. The same experiment with compressed tiff may show similar results (I have not tried that). I also have not tried text with tiff.
So in my work flow, if I have a single layer file, I save as tiff due to its near universal adoption by many software packages. If I have text or layers, I save as psd. Tiff compression is lossless, but I do not use it as it does not help file size much in most cases.
Roger
I appreciate all the answers. It seems there is no compelling reason for me to change my current practice of saving in TIFF. The size difference is not great, and I just buy more external hard drives. The person who does my prints changes them to PSD and says that is not a problem. Thanks again.
Anita
I think I am the odd one out here, I shoot RAW and I make Web sized images as jpegs. If I need a bigger high quality file for a print I make a large Tiff and if I am entirely happy with it I would make a high quality jpeg and then delete the Tiff my logic being I can always recreate one if needed from the RAW file.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but do most people save RAW and full size TIFF and then web-sized jpegs as well? I appreciate the TIFF is always there for convenience - but so is the RAW, if the TIFF was very difficult to make then I can understand it would be worthwhile keeping it in case some future trick had been learned but I can't see the need to save all my RAW files as TIFF - am I missing something??
Jonathan: I do save my RAW, TIFF and jpeg files. I put time and energy into creating a TIFF image I like, and I don't want to have to repeat the process, even if I could remember all the steps involved. When I'm being good, I delete the RAW files I'm not going to ever use, but, I'm not always good. I have prints made of my really good images, and for that I need the TIFF or PSD file. Hard drive space is relatively cheap, so I don't worry about the size of my files. Question: Why do you delete your TIFF files?
Anita: Why do you delete your TIFF files?
I don't create TIFF files routinely in so far that the majority of my images are sent to Photoshop and then I create web sized jpegs, when I want a print I produce a large Tiff and I sometimes save it, but for the the majority of my RAW files I have written a number of Actions which create Smart Sharpened / Unsharp Mask sharpened Web sized jpegs of varying sizes. I suspect my scenario is possibly the reverse of yours i.e. you make lots of prints - I don't -just those for club competitions - probably 15 -20 per year.
Jonathan: I guess I don't rely on jpegs because they are not lossless files and was advised not to. I believe Mike Moats, one of the moderators for Macro and Flora, uses jpeg, including for his prints, which he sells.
Horse for courses Anita, my pal is editor of Professional Image Maker magazine and he uses jpegs, I think we tend to get a little all too concerned with quality in terms of doing the ultimate possible. Whilst I go along with this I have to admit a lot of detail is frequently "lost " due to screen calibration print set up and a whole host of other reasons look at my previous image of a butterfly one is 8 bit the other 16, can you see a difference? Maybe if you look really hard on a 16x20 print but on a screen that displays jpegs for theWeb?? I now suspect some of the big boys will come down on me like ton of bricks - lets wait and see!!:)
Jonathan: I use 8 bit and that seems sufficient for my purposes.
Anita, Jonathan,
Different folks have different needs... if 8-bits works for you, then by all means use 8 bits. One way that people use 16-bits to good use is through many processing steps/layers. Usually each step invokes interpolation between values which incorporates less error over 16 bits than 8. Jpeg further compresses the 8 bits to introduce more error. Error is multiplied through many processing steps and may even become visible. ;)
Processing jpegs produces visible error relatively quickly, in my experience.
ymmv.
Cheers,
-Michael-
I don't think it hurts to maintain 16-bit depth to your precious images until you decide what to do with them. Processing 16-bit images can produce a big performance hit on your computer (depending on your platform) but we are still only talking seconds to minutes so ultimately, who cares? I keep my images 16-bit until I need to reduce to 8-bit (for web, my printer etc) but if this costs me a few minutes I will use it to talk to my loved ones, smell the coffee and generally appreciate life.
Michael, I should clarify my pal uses jpegs as the final image for printing - he doesn't shoot in jpeg. I agree with your take on this.
You have a good point John, maybe yet again I will return to 16 bit because I will only be using it to manipulate images I will be storing relatively few 16 bit Tiffs - and hey I just bought a backup 2 terabyte hard drive for less then £100.
A number of labs use and request JPEG to print from. Many clients use ftp to upload images to the lab server and a compressed JPEG takes up a lot less bandwidth. The "finalized" files are typically converted from TIFF/ PSD to JPEG prior to print making. As the image has been "finalized" before converting as above... the image remains basically intact EXCEPT FOR BEING COMPRESSED AND UN-COMPRESSED ONCE to print. Most JPEG destruction occurs when you ALTER the file, not simply opening, viewing and closing.
I save working files as 16 bit PSD, 8 bit TIFF as finalized, and JPEG for web or presentation as needed.
You buy the best cameras and lenses, why not maintain the best image integrity as long as possible.
Best,
Chas
Last edited by Charles Glatzer; 08-22-2010 at 11:20 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote