go-retouch-go wrote:
So my wonder is that if you work in a PSD format, and save off as a flattened TIFF, will it be the same quality as if you were to work on a multi layered TIFF in the first place and then save to a flattened TIFF? Or would it be reduced? I hope this makes sense! Sorry if my explination skills are not so great..

They should be the same quality since TIFF by default doesn't introduce lossy compression.

Nona Emanon wrote:
...
when you are 'working', the images as stored inside your computer's memory do not necessarily conform to any image file format.

Huh?

Ezhini wrote:

Huh?

I thought the same! If you have an image in Photoshop and create layers on it, you can save as TIFF. Make sure you check while saving that it preserves layers.

Thanks for feedback. Sooo I hope it's definitely true that a flat TIFF from a PSD will have the same quality as a flat TIFF from a layered TIFF.

Also what do you retouchers normally send back to the client? I was thinking of sending TIFFs & JPEG (for people that don't have correct software to veiw TIFF) for all my future projects but not sure if it is a bit unnecessary.

Nona Emanon wrote:
how do you work on multi-layered tiff?

when you are 'working', the images as stored inside your computer's memory do not necessarily conform to any image file format.

Any standard image manipulation software (photoshop, painter, etc.) should allow you to manipulate any number of file formats.

TIFF files and PSD files are both "lossless" formats, meaning there is no file compression. - and they can be saved out as layered files.  Jpeg is a type of file compression - you'll loose quality and you'll also loose the ability to save out layered files. 

it's a good idea to work in a lossless file format for your master files and then save out jpegs or whatever your file format of choice is depending on the output of the final image

go-retouch-go wrote:
Also what do you retouchers normally send back to the client? I was thinking of sending TIFFs & JPEG (for people that don't have correct software to veiw TIFF) for all my future projects but not sure if it is a bit unnecessary.

Depends who the client is and what they're going to do with it.
If it is something like a simple head shot for Joe Average at Business ABC and it's gonna be used in reports and on a website and simple stuff like that, I would send a JPEG. But if it is for someone who knows what different file types mean, and will be doing something further with it (like an advertising campaign), I would send the TIFF.
But that's just me.

go-retouch-go wrote:
Then recently I was working with a clients file in regular PSD layers and sent as a JPEG. They then asked for a TIFF. So I saved it off as TIFF from the PSD file and when I zoomed in loads I could see the difference in comparison to the JPEG.

You maybe using too much compression when saving the Jpeg. Lower compression rates will reduce the differences somwhat.

There is no difference in quality between the layered PSD and a layered TIFF file, all else being equal. They are just different formats for different reasons.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
You maybe using too much compression when saving the Jpeg. Lower compression rates will reduce the differences somwhat.

There is no difference in quality between the layered PSD and a layered TIFF file, all else being equal. They are just different formats for different reasons.

I literally zoomed in SO much, it was a barely noticeable difference. I always save as the highest quality JPEG possible. I think the fact that I could see (a very small) difference concerned me very briefly. I imagined clients coming back years later saying "why didnt you send me a goddamn TIFF?!". Then soon after I realised that is a bit ridiculous.

But yeah thanks for the useful info and reassurance everyone!

Ashish Arora wrote:
The sizing was I guess like this:

PSD- 1 GB

TIFF - 4 GB

PSB - 16 GB

Ooh yes and compressed tiffs take longer to open/ save than PSDs. (Uncompressed faster obviously)

Thanks that's some useful info. Yes I have noticed TIFFs used to take FOREVER to open on my old pc!

Thanks TMA for your input, I am a full time retoucher as well so I know about layers and JPEGs reducing quality after each save etc. Hopefully it will help others. It's interesting to know who you send TIFFs to. It has been great to get so much input into the topic

Ashish Arora wrote:
I believe Sean can point out the hidden technicalities on psd vs. tiff better.

But, it all comes down to your requirement, I've noticed PSDs aren't any good beyond 500 MB-600 MB, I've had my share of f**k ups with them and quit using them since most of my files are 1-2 GB big.

The sizing was I guess like this:

PSD- 1 GB

TIFF - 4 GB

PSB - 16 GB

Ooh yes and compressed tiffs take longer to open/ save than PSDs. (Uncompressed faster obviously)

Hmm, i have complete opposite experience.
I always work in psd and save to tiff for clients.
Why would adobe create a psd format, if tiff is just as good for during editing? -->

Uncompressed layered Tiffs take a lot more time to open/save and are unneccesary big (depending on whether you choose RLE or ZIP, you're either getting slower performance than PSD AND hugely increased files, or ridiculously slow performance and still increased files).

Work in psd/psb

Save/send finals as flattened tiff and jpeg

Ashish Arora wrote:
I believe Sean can point out the hidden technicalities on psd vs. tiff better.

But, it all comes down to your requirement, I've noticed PSDs aren't any good beyond 500 MB-600 MB, I've had my share of f**k ups with them and quit using them since most of my files are 1-2 GB big.

The sizing was I guess like this:

PSD- 1 GB

TIFF - 4 GB

PSB - 16 GB

Ooh yes and compressed tiffs take longer to open/ save than PSDs. (Uncompressed faster obviously)

Jeff Schewe has better access to the Adobe engineers than I do (anything is better than '0' ) so I'll defer to him on this.

The key takeway message can be summed up with ...

Jeff Schewe wrote:
And, let me be blunt, anybody who thinks PSD is "better" than TIFF is ignorant of the facts. If Adobe would let them, the Photoshop engineers would tell you to quit using PSD.

I will say, though, that I believe the maximum file size for a PSD is actually 2GB vs. 1GB (total compressed; not uncompressed).  For my own work, I usually will work in TIFF unless the client has specifically requested a PSD and I fear that the client may feel that I'm trying to 'dupe' them by sending a TIFF.

For the OPs questions, this means that you can work with a PSD -or- TIFF while actually doing your retouching and then save a flattened TIFF copy off from either with identical results.  For the most part, though, those clients who didn't want the actual "PSDs" just wanted a JPG at the end of the day (actually ~50% requested flattened TIFFs as well, but only a ridiculously small % of those ever download anything but the JPG version).

RobertO van der Laan wrote:
Uncompressed layered Tiffs take a lot more time to open/save and are unneccesary big (depending on whether you choose RLE or ZIP, you're either getting slower performance than PSD AND hugely increased files, or ridiculously slow performance and still increased files).

I believe I said that too, so not sure whats your point there with quoting me really.

Ashish Arora wrote:
Ooh yes and compressed tiffs take longer to open/ save than PSDs. (Uncompressed faster obviously)

RobertO van der Laan wrote:
Work in psd/psb

I pretty much work ONLY in PSB for the reason stated below:

Ashish Arora wrote:
I've noticed PSDs aren't any good beyond 500 MB-600 MB, I've had my share of f**k ups with them and quit using them since most of my files are 1-2 GB big.

Ooh and Sean's been patient enough and witnessed me f**king up with PSDs, and so have couple of others.

So, I always say things with personal experience than go out claim them as facts, and I don't get your point with praising PSDs in front of me really.

They aren't evil, but one must quit using them if the files are too big, like you said so will I - Adobe didn't create the PSB format out of the blue.

Optimofoto wrote:
Tiff and the PSD format are exactly the same thing.
Their both TIFF 7.0 standard and owned by adobe.
The only reason for working in PSD are when you work across software like going from Photoshop => Illustrator => Photoshop => InDesign (just as an example)
since it has better compatibility within the CS family.

Tiff has the advantage that it can be read by almost any software that handles images, and it has no size limitation.

Summary; if you dont go back and forth between different software with your artwork, then stay with tiff.

JR
Photographer and Educator

Ohhhhhh, OK I always wondered about that myself.

I only really use Lightoom 3 and CS4. I know light room recommends saving as Tiff's
but I always assumed that PSD's were the best format for Photoshop CS.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Ashish Arora wrote:
your point with praising PSDs in front of me

Where do you see me 'praising' psd's?..I love a good movie or book but hey, let's cut the drama, seriously.

For me (and seems for you too) there's no benefit in WORKING in tiff, either PSD or PSB for bigger files works (but 500 mb in my experience is small enough to use psd) and has it's advantages over tiff.

I read the blogpost from Jeff Schewe and the points about TIFF being a public standard etc were completely irrelevant, since im talking about working in psd/psb and not about outputing for clients. That's why I commented on this thread.

Ashish Arora wrote:
So, I always say things with personal experience

That's what I did.
You must be talking about someone else's comment, i litterally say 'i have complete opposite experience'.

than go out claim them as facts,

You must be talking about your own comment here