TIFF vs PSD

Any thoughts?

I was browsing through my edits folder today and am noticing some TIFFs are as large as 200-300mb! (I'm sure 16-bit plays a part in this)

PSD files seem to be smaller with the same amount of quality (16-bit, uncomprressed) and options (layers) as tiff--so why not use PSD instead?

Curious about this discussion as well...

I just ran a test using Lightroom as the RAW converter. In all 4 cases the psd and the tiff came out to the exact same size. I converted to 16 bit at full size RGB color space. There is a difference from image to image and this is probably due to the difference in the amount of color information it has to store.

I went through this whole psd vs tiff format dilemma not too long ago. I ran into some issues with batching psd files. Converted them to TIFF and they worked fine. If you have something like a logo and you want to bring it in on top of a photo you should use psd as any transparent layers will come in as just that. If you do the same with TIFF the transparent layers will come in as white. This is using the place command.

Generally I use TIFF for images and PSD for anything with illustration or text in it.

ssim wrote in post #4978808
I just ran a test using Lightroom as the RAW converter. In all 4 cases the psd and the tiff came out to the exact same size. I converted to 16 bit at full size RGB color space. There is a difference from image to image and this is probably due to the difference in the amount of color information it has to store.

I went through this whole psd vs tiff format dilemma not too long ago. I ran into some issues with batching psd files. Converted them to TIFF and they worked fine. If you have something like a logo and you want to bring it in on top of a photo you should use psd as any transparent layers will come in as just that. If you do the same with TIFF the transparent layers will come in as white. This is using the place command.

Generally I use TIFF for images and PSD for anything with illustration or text in it.

Interesting. I did the same but with Aperture using 16-bit and ProPhoto. The TIFF and PSD export came in at the same file size of 48MB.

I then opened them both in Photoshop and added two adjustment layers. (curves and levels). Saved the PSD as is and the TIFF with two different layer compression methods.

Final sizes after editing with two adjustment layers:

PSD: 83.8 MB
TIFF (RLE--faster saves, bigger files): 124.8 MB
TIFF (ZIP--slower saves, smaller files): 83.8 MB

On my Macbook, the PSD and TIFF RLE saved at the same speed, the ZIP of course slower. But it all depends on your system I guess.

PSD is TIF, just an Adobe specific implementation of TIF format. Other than compression, and fact that some other applications might not work with PSD files, they should be same same in terms of image.
Jack

A TIFF file won't contain more than one layer of information, whereas a PSD allows you to save the original image in a layer and then all the adjustment layers above it which you can turn on and off (as well as save as image comps for easy access), so for saving adjusted layers in an uncompressed format, then PSD is the way to go. However if you need to transfer these files to another application or computer then TIF should be accepted by most applications outside of Photoshop.

I find TIFF files generally bloated above what my requirements are and save 95% compressed JPEGS at 1/10 the size with no image loss, but I always keep a version of the PSD authoring file in case I need to output another version or make changes.

huh? I have tiff files with multiple layers that have saved fine with those multiple layers...or am I misunderstanding you?

Dave

Canonymous wrote in post #4982509
A TIFF file won't contain more than one layer of information, whereas a PSD allows you to save the original image in a layer and then all the adjustment layers above it which you can turn on and off (as well as save as image comps for easy access), so for saving adjusted layers in an uncompressed format, then PSD is the way to go. However if you need to transfer these files to another application or computer then TIF should be accepted by most applications outside of Photoshop.

I find TIFF files generally bloated above what my requirements are and save 95% compressed JPEGS at 1/10 the size with no image loss, but I always keep a version of the PSD authoring file in case I need to output another version or make changes.

I don't follow you on where you say that the TIF file can't conaint more than one layer of information. To test your theory and make sure that I wasn't giving misleading information here I loaded a TIF made some adjustment layers, created a new layer with some of the image from the background layer and then did more adjustment layers. It works the same way a psd file does.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Canonymous wrote in post #4982509
A TIFF file won't contain more than one layer of information

Photoshop has had the option of layered tiffs from PS 6 or so...
Layered tiffs are not supported by all software though.

Rene answered the question for me. I have been working with Photoshop since version 2 so never really used tiff for saving layers, sorry for confusing anyone.
If I am working exclusively in Photoshop then there is little need to save the file as anything else. If I need compatability between programmes outside of the Adobe suite or a printer service and need lossless compression, then tiff may be a better alternative.