# .PSD vs .TIF



## harringg

I've always worked in Photoshop saving as .PSD files, but with LR I've found to roundtrip layered images between LR and PS, unless I save with Maximum Compatibility, the .PSD files won't preview in LR. If saved as .TIF files, they do. But the .TIF files are 5x larger than .PSD files.

Three questions I guess:
1.I've turned off the prompt to save as Maximum Compatibility in PS CS4 and can't find where to turn it back on as an option, anyone know where that setting is?
2.Is there a way to compress .TIF files properly so that they don't take up as much disk space, but are still editable in layers.
3.What is the preferred file format for working with layered images in PS? TIFF/PSD/Other? (Actually, other than the LR preview issue, is there a reason to pick one over the other?)

Thanks


----------



## Halfje-Bruin

Can't help with 1 and 2 but I think LR defaults to TIFF. Just try to add a new external editor through the preferences and it will show the preferred file type.


----------



## johnbeardy

Use TIF. There's nothing that can be saved in a PSD that can't also be saved in a TIF, and PSD is a proprietary format that fewer third party programs can read.

As for compression, in Photoshop itself you can save in compressed formats. My preference is LZW because my experience is that it confuses fewer third party programs than does ZIP.

Maximise Compatibility is set in Photoshop's Preferences. I would advise this to be "always". If you don't select this, you can't really complain when other programs can't read the file. But in any case, switch to TIF.

John


----------



## Victoria Bampton

It's also quicker to update metadata in TIFFs than PSDs, so I'll back up John's recommendation too. I always used PSD to identify working files, but I've switched to TIFFs now too.


----------



## Roy Mathers

[quote author=harringg link=topic=11545.msg77476#msg77476 date=12891925'8]
I've always worked in Photoshop saving as .PSD files, but with LR I've found to roundtrip layered images between LR and PS, unless I save with Maximum Compatibility, the .PSD files won't preview in LR. If saved as .TIF files, they do. But the .TIF files are 5x larger than .PSD files.
[/quote]

I'm surprised at this last statement. I have just saved the same (DNG) file as a TIFF and a PSD and there is very little difference in the file size.


----------



## johnbeardy

Yes, and I don't think file size should be a consideration here. Disc space just goes with the territory, and often file size is a trade off with speed of opening/saving.

John


----------



## harringg

Thanks for the feedback, I've always used .PSD because I was always using Photoshop with no intent of editing the image elsewhere, but LR seems to like TIFF better, so I'll experiment more with compression.


----------



## Selwin

johnbeardy said:


> Yes, and I don't think file size should be a consideration here. Disc space just goes with the territory, and often file size is a trade off with speed of opening/saving.
> 
> John


I second that. I used to be a psd person too, until I received my new Mac Pro last week. I was testing it for speed opening and saving files in Photoshop. This test struck me:
- 16bit psd file
- stitched Panorama
- 3 layers
- file size 738MB
- SaveAs time: 48 seconds
Mind you this is on a new Mac Pro with a fast striped RAID drive. Copying that file in Finder only takes 4 seconds.
TIFF format:
- SaveAs time: 4 seconds
- file size 1.05GB
A 12x speed improvement! The TIFF file is about 50% larger.
I don't have many PSD files (most is saved in RAW) and speed is much more important than size.
So nothing but TIFF for me when saving from Photoshop from now on. Still one thing bugs me: why would anyone use a file format that seems to have only downsides? There must be some reason.......


----------



## johnbeardy

Because it's somehow been left as the default?


----------



## Selwin

johnbeardy said:


> Because it's somehow been left as the default?


Could be. I suddenly became interested in this subject so I spent an hour at Google searching for "psd vs tiff". Apparently this is a heavily debated subject. Anyway I found some quotes, but didn't check them:
- "psd provides better interchangability with other Creative Suite products like Indesign and such"
- "TIFF won't handle transparent layers, like when you want to add a Logo to an image, it will become white instead of transparent". Other sources say this statement is incorrect.
- "Don't try to save GPS data to a TIFF, the image will be there but the GPS data will be lost"
- "I only use TIFF for saving between LR and PS and that requires a flat image (no layers) anyway, so for me it's academic", now I know that that is bollocks because I have a bunch of layered PSD files that even LR 2.x can read

So even if all these statements are false, maybe there are situations when psd is the preferred file format. Fact is that I will start to use TIFF from now on and just see what happens. The saving time advantage TIFF provides (10x-15x speed improvement) to me is like a siren's call. Especially with very large files, where 48 seconds turn into 4 seconds.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

GPS was a problem for CS3/CS4 but is fine on newer software - http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/408/kb408370.html

Most of the reasons to use PSD instead of TIFF (layers, paths, transparency, that kind of thing) went out the window years ago.


----------



## Mark Sirota

Selwin, did you repeat that test multiple times?  The first run will likely be slower than subsequent tests, because the later tests will have the benefit of caching.  If you run the TIFF test first and then PSD, are the results similar?


----------



## Selwin

Mark Sirota said:


> Selwin, did you repeat that test multiple times?  The first run will likely be slower than subsequent tests, because the later tests will have the benefit of caching.  If you run the TIFF test first and then PSD, are the results similar?


 
Ok I redid the test. All tests are on RAID0 drive.
1. Load 738MB PSD: 10 seconds
2. SaveAs TIFF uncompressed: "could not save [....tif] because of a disk error". Weird. Awkward.

Started clean (restarted computer). 
1. Load 738MB PSD: 10 seconds
2. SaveAs TIFF uncompressed: 4 seconds (1.05GB)
3. SaveAs PSD copy: 47 seconds (738MB)
4. Reduce mode from 16 bit to 8 bit: 3 seconds
5. SaveAs TIFF uncompressed: 2.5 seconds (426MB)
6. SaveAs PSD copy: 2.5 seconds (423MB)
7. Set to 16 bit again (using history - step back)
8. SaveAs PSD copy: 47 seconds (738MB)

What do you think?


----------



## Mark Sirota

Clearly there's something magic about 16-bit PSDs.


----------



## Selwin

Mark Sirota said:


> Clearly there's something magic about 16-bit PSDs.


So it would seem. So clearly we need a wizard to break the spell. Found it! It's called The Incredibly Fast Format


----------

