Help with file format

[emily_avila]

Hi everyone, I am in the midst of a product job, 6 bottles of various hard alcohol. I am to select just the bottles from my image, placing it

on a transparent background for later background manipulation. My question is, what format should I save the file as? I'm using

photoshop.

Thank you for taking the time!

-Emily

[Jochen_S]

<p>Since you are in Photoshop and not ready to leave it with a final result why not stick to Photoshop's generic format PSD or what it is called?</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

Anything that doesn't make you lose quality and+or data. If you've actually done something using photoshop, it likely

involves layers so stick with PSD format.

[Spearhead]

<p>PSD is almost always the wrong choice. If you want to save it with layers, use TIFF.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Here's a good explanation: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1331836</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

As Jeff says: TIFF

[ant_nio_marques]

"TIFF can save EVERYTHING a PSD can save including layers, paths, channels, transparency, annotations"

 

I didn't know this. Seeing as much of the argument is that TIFF is more interoperable, are other applications capable of

reading all that from the TIFF? (it's one thing to save it, another to save it in a way that others use. For instance, Silverfadt

and Vuescan save the infrared channel somewhere in their 'raw' tiffs, but They do it differently, SF can't read Vuescan's,

and no one else can read either.

 

Also, what about 'mask' layers for non-destructive editing?

[Spearhead]

<p>Mask layers are stored also.</p>

<p>"Raw" formats from scanner software are not standardized.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>As Jeff and Ellis says, use TIFF. It's an open, non proprietary format that far more software products can support (it cost nothing for them to use the format in their products it unlike PSD). There's nothing other than Duotone support PSD provides that TIFF doesn't. There's really no need to be using PSD these days. </p>

<p>BTW, a so called "<em>raw</em> TIFF" is just like any other TIFF and nothing like a camera raw original which isn't rendered. The so called '<em>raw</em>' part is simply a TIFF that needs further editing to appear as so desired. </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>According to Wikipedia, TIFF is owned by Adobe. You can read about it here:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF</p>

<p>and here is a link to the Adobe developer Resource page for TIFF.</p>

<p>http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/tiff/index.html</p>

<p>To answer your original question, for a working file in Photoshop, I would use PSD. For a final file that you deliver to a customer, the format the customer desires. For your archive use, PSD or TIFF.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>TIFF is an ISO standard. There is no reason for anyone, ever, to use PSD.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>To answer your original question, for a working file in Photoshop, I would use PSD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>@Andrew Rodney.<br /> 1) Since the OP is working in Photoshop, for a <strong>working</strong> file she does not have to worry about interoperability nor long term (years) support, so why not PSD.</p>

<p>2) A PSD file will support all Photoshop functions without question.</p>

<p>3) PSD files are usually slightly smaller than TIFF files; they load and save faster.</p>

<p>What advantage do you see using TIFF to store a <strong>working </strong>(short term storage) image that will be processed in Photoshop and only Photoshop?</p>

<p>I can see a possible advantage to TIFF for images that will be processed in other programs that do not support PSD files or for long term storage. Neither condition applies to the OP's question nor to my reply.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>1) Since the OP is working in Photoshop, for a <strong>working</strong> file she does not have to worry about interoperability nor long term (years) support, so why not PSD.</p>

</blockquote>

Because down the road, she <em>may</em> have to convert <strong>every</strong> PSD to TIFF. San's Duotone support, there is nothing else the PSD provinces the TIFF doesn't in Photoshop, in terms of operability. And TIFF with compression while opening and saving is slower, takes up less space than PSD not that drive space is anything to worry about these days.

[ant_nio_marques]

Ok. You've stated adamantly that Ps can use TIFF as its only storage format. That should mean I can tell my company's

designers to dump PSD?

 

That's a different matter, however, from having other program's correctly interpret what Ps puts in the TIFF. Yes, scanner

'raw' files (I did put the ' there....) aren't standardised, but as far as I know they follow the spec on how to add an extra

channel. The problem is that other software isn't counting on having it there to read. Likewise I wonder how much other

programs can interpret what Ps writes. Yes, the spec for TIFF is open, but is it high level enough? I really don't know.

That's why I'm asking. Will the Gimp (argh) correctly read complex Ps TIFFs? If so, that's awesome and I'll agree PSD

would have no use.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>That should mean I can tell my company's designers to dump PSD?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a different matter, however, from having other program's correctly interpret what Ps puts in the TIFF<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If those programs are correctly written to accept the standard TIFF, it will interpert it correctly. That doesn't mean these programs can access the data the same way (for example, the ability to edit the proprietary PS layers). You'll see the image like Photoshop, it will likely be treated as a '<em>flattened</em>' TIFF. IF the application also supported PSD, that would be the same in terms of limitation and if the application didn't support PSD, you couldn’t even open the document. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, the spec for TIFF is open, but is it high level enough?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is, to the degree any other file format could be. IOW, if you had a TIFF and a PSD, the limitations would be the same and again, the only difference would be the support, or lack of, Duotone functionality. Otherwise the two behave the same to outside app's that support the file format(s). </p>

[djthomas]

<p>How does a TIFF file handle things like Photoshop 'Smart Objects' or other items that might be unique within Photoshop's capabilities?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>How does a TIFF file handle things like Photoshop 'Smart Objects' or other items that might be unique within Photoshop's capabilities?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Think of it as totally flattening the layer stack in a PSD or TIFF. All that layer and Smart Object editing is proprietary in Photoshop alone. Once you leave that proprietary app, PSD, JPEG, DNG, TIFF, you've got a baked and flat image. If it's color and tone appearance is good, that says a lot, it's not chopped liver <g>. But the editing flexibility and unique features of Photoshop are gone. </p>

[marc_rochkind]

<p>The OP is in the "midst of a product job." I don't understand all this advice to save the work-in-progress in anything other that the app's native format. For long-term saving once the job is complete, the arguments for TIFF make more sense. I don't think anyone outside of the Photoshop development team is in a position to know what information might be stored in a PSD that doesn't have a representation in TIFF. It's very unlikely, pretty much impossible, that PS can save data in TIFF that it can't store in PSD.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand all this advice to save the work-in-progress in anything other that the app's native format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What native format? Don't know about you, but in Photoshop (CC), if I make a new document, add a layer and such then select "<em>Save</em>" I'm promoted to save a TIFF, <strong>not</strong> a PSD. Why? Because that's how I saved the last new doc and thankfully PS is sticky in terms of the format selection. In my case, TIFF <strong>is</strong> the native format for data with layers and the like. Again, aside from Duotone support, PSD isn't necessary, useful or a well planned file format for archival purposes compared to TIFF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's very unlikely, pretty much impossible, that PS can save data in TIFF that it can't store in PSD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So considering that TIFF is far more supported outside the Adobe universe, why would anyone select PSD? And if you ask the right Adobe engineers as I have, you'll likely hear from them their desire to ignore PSD as anything like the so called "native format". They'd like it to go away (but it will not). PSB, that's a totally different story.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>@Jeff and Andrew</p>

<p>Which widely used photo editing programs cannot read PSD files? The Corel programs can. A few years ago when I looked at the major DAM programs, all of them could. I am not sure about GIMP. Since I run a PC, I am not sure about the Apple programs.</p>

<p>Some programs may not be able to use some of the mask or layer data stored in the PSD, but they probably could not use the same data stored in a TIFF either.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Which widely used photo editing programs cannot read PSD files?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any less than TIFF, and that is the case, doesn't bode as well for PSD. To use PSD, these programs have to pay a license to Adobe. That's not the case with TIFF. What for pay, proprietary format has provided longer term archival support than an open and free one? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some programs may not be able to use some of the mask or layer data stored in the PSD, but they probably could not use the same data stored in a TIFF either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Inside Photoshop and the Adobe universes this is all proprietary. Outside, TIFF or PSD play the same way: they treat the data as a flattened version. The big difference is <strong>if</strong> the application you are using understands TIFF but not PSD, the PSD is simply unrecognizable. The TIFF is opened flattened. Or the PSD could be opened, again flattened if the application has licensed the usage of PSD. </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>That is very interesting, Andrew, but you have not answered my question.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>That is very interesting, Andrew, but you have not answered my question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think I did. What isn't clear? </p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>A related question: When saving as TIFF, Photoshop CC has various "TIFF Options," including "Byte Order," where one can choose IBM PC or Macintosh. What's the significance of the choice?</p>

<p>It defaults to Mac so I check PC since that's what I'm using, but I think sometimes I've forgotten, and it doesn't seem to make any difference.</p>