Tiff or Psd

[cascade]

Just wondering what is better to save in to keep all the layers intact so I can reedit later if need be.

Both Tiff and Psd seem to do the job but Tiff files are a lot larger, is there some benefit to this?

[MarkW]

Tiff files when fully uncompressed are quite large but they can have some compression. PSD files like TIFF files can also have some compression.

PSD though generally need to be read by an Adobe suitable programme where as TIFF can be read by just about all image programmes.

Personally I preffer to use TIFF as it will easily interchange.

[Big Pix]

..... agree...... tiff, although larger, is much better

[DAdeGroot]

Whereas I'm in the PSD camp.

If I've had to edit a file, it'll be in Photoshop anyway, and TIFFs come in so many flavours it's not funny, some programs read some sorts, others don't.

If you've got layers, and other PS specific edits, it makes the most sense to save in PSD.

Interestingly, the TIFF specification is (as of 2009) now controlled by Adobe anyway, so any idea of impartiality kinda flies out the window...

[MarkW]

Interestingly, the TIFF specification is (as of 2009) now controlled by Adobe anyway, so any idea of impartiality kinda flies out the window...

But TIFF can be viewed or altered by virtually every programme design to view or alter images without exception (that I can recall) but you cant do that with PSD. Me, I use Aperture 3 and I'm not sure that PSD is supported by Aperture. It might be but since I don't use it I never really looked.

[DAdeGroot]

But TIFF can be viewed or altered by virtually every programme design to view or alter images without exception (that I can recall) but you cant do that with PSD. Me, I use Aperture 3 and I'm not sure that PSD is supported by Aperture. It might be but since I don't use it I never really looked.

Yes there is that, but it depends entirely on which version of TIFF the program is designed to handle, what compression methods it supports and what bit depths it supports.

Since I personally use LR, and CS4 (both Adobe packages) on a Mac (which supports viewing PSDs in Preview), I have no reason not to use PSD. Having said that, very few of my images go via photoshop, most are stored only as RAW files with LR adjustments recorded in the LR catalogue.

[Big Pix]

...... all the more reason to use tiff...... LR catalogue disappears...... you start again......

[MarkW]

Yes there is that, but it depends entirely on which version of TIFF the program is designed to handle, what compression methods it supports and what bit depths it supports.

Using Aperture 3 with CS3 once the image has been imported allows full bit depth and multiple compressions variations. Not that I use any of the compression systems as I prefer a fully uncompressed file - even though they tend to get really big. Prior to import to Aperture I set all the RAW setting in Nikon nxView and nxCapture.

[James T]

PSDs all day everyday for me. Hate TIFFs massive ugly things that they are. Only time I use a TIFF is to export as an 8-bit TIFF for printing, which then gets deleted right after.

...... all the more reason to use tiff...... LR catalogue disappears...... you start again......

Of course you'd have it backed up though, so no worries.

[soulman]

Just wondering what is better to save in to keep all the layers intact so I can reedit later if need be.

I'd say better to have and not need than need & not have. The only reason a TIFF might be larger is because it is not compressed, whereas the PSD will be. All things being equal, a compressed TIFF should be smaller than a PSD with many layers. The TIFF doesn't contain any more information, in fact your PSDs have the extra information - layers - so you might as well store your work in this format if that's how you use it. You can easily export to any other format anytime you need it.

[cascade]

So am I right in saying the the quality between the two is the same and both are editable with no loss of quality and they contain the original layers.

PSD are mainly for adobe products while tiffs can be used on most other programs.

In my case I use lightroom and Photoshop so a PSD would be ok for me unless I send some off to be printed in which case I could convert a PSD into a Tiff.

Is that correct?

[soulman]

Pretty much. I don't think TIFFs can be saved with Photoshop layers though, so, as I said above, if you use layers you are better off with PSDs. TIFFs don't offer better image quality, but they can be edited without degrading the image like PSDs. TIFFs would be considered more portable probably, but I imagine most print shops would have Ps anyway.

[MarkW]

All things being equal, a compressed TIFF should be smaller than a PSD with many layers. The TIFF doesn't contain any more information, in fact your PSDs have the extra information - layers - so you might as well store your work in this format if that's how you use it.

TIFF does support layer information, there its only the way a file relates the image plus any compression that varies between differing formats.

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

[soulman]

TIFF does support layer information...

There you go. I should have that checked myself - thanks for the info.

[Kym]

I use PSD by default (smaller on disk) and TIFF if I need to do an external exchange.
PS and LR here so no big deal.