Save As TIF vs. PSD?

[JimGo...@adobeforums.com]

In a mood to experiment, I saved a 495mb 20 layer PSD file as TIF and found that it is about 3x faster on the saving but at the same time it uses over twice the disk space.

Other than speed in saving, are there any other advantages to saving files as TIF? Has anyone converted over to saving all their files in TIF format?

Thanks!

Jim

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

for me tiff usually ends up smaller then psd, have you set both image and layer compression to zip?

[JimGo...@adobeforums.com]

Will try compression and see what the size and timing numbers are.

One of the main reasons I tried this was I am looking into ways to speed my old G5 Quad a bit when it comes to saving files.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Compressed TIFFs take longer to open and save compared to PSDs. You must have saved an uncompressed TIFF.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

As mentioned in another post:
Results of a few saves:
Original file no layers saved as psd = 34M
saved as uncompressed tif = 34M
ZIP tif = 26M
Original file with layers saved as psd = 89M
uncompressed tif/ZIP layer compression = 89M
ZIP compressed tif/ZIP layer compression = 81M
Uncompressed tiffs with or without layers gave VERY fast saves

[Jim_J...@adobeforums.com]

Whenever comparing image compression, recognize that no two images compress the same. It all depends on the content of the image. A noisy image compresses much differently than one with continual tones. Experiment for yourself with your own images.

Take caution that if special Photoshop features are saved in a TIFF file, they may not open in another program that reads the TIFF. You may only be able to read the TIFF file back into Photoshop to continue to use those Photoshop-specific features. Don't assume saving to TIFF breaks you from a proprietary format. Photoshop still packs its own unique info into TIFF.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

I have been trying to gather information and recommendations on which format to use for archiving saving and master files. Some insist that psd is the way to go and others use tiffs.

From Adobe support:
"Flattening TIFF files-
Photoshop allows layers to be saved in TIFF files. Layered TIFF files are larger than flattened TIFF files and require more resources for processing and printing. If you work with a layered TIFF file, save the original layered file as an Adobe Photoshop (.psd) file; then, when you are ready to save the file in TIFF format, save a copy without layers."

So, I guess they are recommending saving layered files, regardless of type, as psd. As to flattened files, I guess its tiff.
Anyone have any further advice?
Jonathan

[JimGo...@adobeforums.com]

Well then it looks like staying with PSD is the way to go. If only PSD saved as fast as uncompressed TIF :-(

Jim

[Chri...@adobeforums.com]

Jim - no. Layer data in TIFF files does not prevent the files from being read by other applications.

[Jim_J...@adobeforums.com]

Chris - I mean if the Photoshop document has something like an adjustment layer or a text layer, another app may not know what to do with that Photoshop-specific data that is packed in the TIFF file.

[Chri...@adobeforums.com]

Jim - correct, the other application will just see the flattened composite image and won't see the layers.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for the information about using PS layered files in other apps.
Anyone with anymore suggestions relating to the above. psd or tiffs, that is the question.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

PSD, less headache all around if it is only for in-house workflow anyway.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Some insist that psd is the way to go and others use tiffs.

It comes down to personal preference. I prefer PSDs. That's all.

They're both Adobe formats, anyway.

[JimGo...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks to all who replied. After seeing that files in the TIF format were saved 3x faster than PSD's I became curious.

[Welles_...@adobeforums.com]

A slightly different perspective based solely on archival value and future editing. I don't work on big enough files to worry about time (saving 300mb average files doesn't take much time on a Mac Pro) and storage is cheap. I save PSD for editing and flattened TIFs of the same files for printing and the belief that TIF will be viable farther into the future.

[PeterK.@adobeforums.com]

If you save tiffs with compression, then the times should be a lot closer to saving psd files, which are always compressed.

[Jim_J...@adobeforums.com]

TIF will be viable farther into the future

Neither TIF nor PSD have a perfectly stable history. There are plenty of variants within these filetypes. The only guarantee for longevity is to carve your work in stone and hope it is stored securely in a museum.

Remember when EPS was supposed to be the ideal format for vector and bitmap art?

[Welles_...@adobeforums.com]

EPS still is viable.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

...the belief that TIF will be viable farther into the future.

With billions of files of each type in use we can be sure that either file type will always be able to be opened with full information.

[Buko]

Bruce Fraser used ZIP compressed Tiffs exclusively.

[Jim_J...@adobeforums.com]

What brand of shoes did he wear?

[Buko]

Who knows he never disclosed that information in this forum.

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

He has given us... his shoe!

[Jim_J...@adobeforums.com]

Well, maybe he disclosed why he preferred TIF and that information could be more beneficial to this thread.

However, I do need a new pair of shoes and need to be influenced.

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

He has given us... his shoe!

Romanes eunt domus

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

And if it's not done by sunrise...

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Bruce Fraser used ZIP compressed Tiffs exclusively.

Bruce had the serenity and patience of a saint. :/

[Mike_O...@adobeforums.com]

PSD is superior in an actual workflow because you have layer options when placed in In Design.

Tif has superior file compression and options for said compression.

Both are outdated formats.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Outdated? By virtue of PDF?

[Mike_O...@adobeforums.com]

No - because PDF is nothing more then Adobe's version of a bag of snakes.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

What is wrong with snakes?

[Buko]

They are snakey

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Mike,

Can you elaborate, re: outdated PSD, TIF, and snaky PDF?

Thanks.

Neil <g>

[Studi...@adobeforums.com]

PSD for me. As Mike says, the ability to change the layer options in images placed in InDesign is brilliant. This functionality is not available with layered TIFFs.

Also, now that EskoArtwork's Artpro supports mapped Photoshop files, PSD is the only way to go for us. :)

[Mike_O...@adobeforums.com]

Mark fought so hard to try and keep Adobe from taking the PSD file format "outside" of Photoshop, but it was no use. Corporate wanted the format to share with the rest of the applications for cross compatibility and integration. Right idea but the wrong implementation as usual by Adobe marketing due to the lack of market research.

If you go back and study the development of Photoshop you will see how each application was leap frogging over another creating problems for one app and solving some for others. Development does not happen in a linear fashion. Rarely does each division of a company talk to each other on a much needed regular basis in a formal way - and Adobe is no different.

I remember back in PS 7 where as transparency was just starting to kick into the market as far as functionality, but there were holes in either the file format that created issues for the receiving app. or visa verse. I think we are at a point that we can call specific workflows set in stone - even though nothing stays the same in development. Strange quote but there is some truth to it. The more things change the more they stay the same as well.

Adobe REALLY needs to stop this out of control let the artist be free to create what ever they want whenever they want idiotology and DO the necessary market research with commitment to solve actual world issues. Having a bevy of file formats is not only confusing but also pointless at this stage of the game. It just creates more confusion for users and solves nothing but self edification and circle jerking for suits.

There is a need for a cleaner format other then what we have to solve a ton of issues because not only are markets shrinking - so shall development. All in the name of streamlining.

Less is more, not this keep building this unsustainable environment Adobe has created.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, Mike.

Neil

[Mike_O...@adobeforums.com]

Well there is nothing to thank me for. Nobody cares what happens in the actual real world.

[JimGo...@adobeforums.com]

Just found this in the Adobe Knowledge Base:

<http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb408370&sliceId=1>

Seems that if you save a file as TIFF, the GPS info is not preserved. In order to preserve the GPS info you must save the file as PSD.