.PSD or .TIFF?

<p>I use ACR/PS6 for all my postprocessing needs. When my processing requires layers and/or smart objects it has been my habit to save the working file in .psd format. (naturally I always archive the original raw.)<br>

I have read (on line) that some suggest avoiding the .psd format and using .tiff instead. What I wish to know: does saving the file in .tiff format (with all layers intact) provide any advantage or disadvantage over the .psd format? I am not at all concerned about differences in file size. I have some small concern about the viability of the .psd format.</p>

<p>try this........</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78197.0</p>

<p>Aside from Duotone, TIFF provides everything a PSD provides. There are far more software packages that can read TIFF because it's an open format without licensing restrictions like PSD. BOTH TIFF and PSD are owned and controlled by Adobe. <br>

Any time you move from proprietary processing (Layers), doesn't matter if you save PSD or TIFF. The only software that understands how to process that data is Photoshop. So saving another file format doesn't change your limitations in future editing. What you want is the ability to at least open the document even if a flattened version. If you want to open and edit, you're 'stuck' with Adobe. <br>

Smart Objects are one great way to lock yourself into a tighter proprietary processing workflow. </p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

Pls expand on that final sentence re: Smart Objects.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pls expand on that final sentence re: Smart Objects</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In Photoshop CC, I can make use the new Shake Reduction on a Layer and open that in Photoshop CS6 (or earlier). The proprietary processing from CC was applied onto a good old Layer and CS6 supports layers. The same would not be true for Photoshop 2.5 (it didn't understand layers). <br>

<br>

IF in Photoshop CC, I can make use the new Shake Reduction on a Smart Object, I can't do squat with it in CS6, because I went backwards with a processing CS6 can't support. </p>

<p>Andrew-<br>

Many thanks for your replies. </p>

<p>I guess for my case there is no reason to convert from .psd to .tiff since I will still need an operating version of photoshop to further open and process these (layered) files. And, as long as I have an operating version of PS, the .psd files can always be converted to .tiff at any time when that may be necessary.</p>

<p>My plan for dealing with the forecast of "overcast to totally cloudy weather" is to just hang on to CS6 for the foreseeable future (and at my age "foreseeable" ain't all that distant. I don't invest in a lot of green bananas either.) </p>

<p>The improvement in PS (I started with ver. 7) through PSCS-6 have certainly made my editing easier. However I am just an amateur photographer and I have not encountered any issues with my images that I could not have somehow managed using PSCS-4. So I am comfortable assuming that any new features which become available in the cloud, are ones that I can comfortably forego, without seriously impacting the modest quality of my work.</p>

<p>I'd probably consider moving to TIFF forward and keep all the PSD's as is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd probably consider moving to TIFF forward and keep all the PSD's as is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew- why do you suggest this? Makes me think I'm missing something.</p>

 

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78197.40</p>

<p>Andrew, Sorry, I found no answer there. I refer to your suggestion to switch to saving my work-in-progress (layered) files to TIFF from this point forward. What potential advantage does this offer. If I need to move such files to an alternative software, a flattened TIFF file would be the way to go. But it's not much trouble to flatten a PSD file and save as TIFF.</p>

<p>Anyhow, thanks again for your help.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I refer to your suggestion to switch to saving my work-in-progress (layered) files to TIFF from this point forward. What potential advantage does this offer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See above:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Aside from Duotone, <strong>TIFF provides everything a PSD provides.</strong> There are far more software packages that can read TIFF because<strong> it's an open format without licensing restrictions like PSD.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I realise that most of this discussion is as a result of Adobe planning to rent their software, surely this only applies to future versions. I am planning to keep an early version ( I suggest CS2) just in case this rental thing gets out of hand so that I can open files from the past and work on them if necessary.<br>

I have just spent a fruitless few days trying to get my old Canon printer to work properly on my recently acquired Windows 7 PC . In the end I got out my old XP PC and got the feature that I wanted to work! Moral: never get rid of the old faithful programs and equipment just because manufactures want you to update.</p>

<p>I also have real concerns about what good my unflatten PSD files will be in the next few years. I own CS5 but that could become outdated when I upgrade to a new OS system with Mac. I don't plan on paying Adobe a monthly fee for the rest of my life. I know this is a real concern for many who enjoy photography as a serious hobby. <a href="http://johndoddato.blogspot.com/">http://johndoddato.blogspot.com/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also have real concerns about what good my unflatten PSD files will be in the next few years. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>At such a time you are <strong>sure</strong> you can no longer use CS5, save as a flattened TIFF (or even a layered TIFF in case you change your mind). The layered TIFF has a flattened version in it. <br>

One reason so many are upgrading to CS6, the last perceptual license is so they can put this off as long as possible. </p>