Help with file format

[digitaldog]

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Byte Order: Mac or PC? Well that’s a debate that will continue on, but in this case, pick PC since the Mac will have no issues with this Byte order but the ancient PC software may. <br>

Pixel Order: Interleaved is supposed to be a more common way of saving a TIFF and the default, traditional method used by Photoshop from day one. The Per Channel option is supposed to be a little faster at reading and writing the data. The dialog does give some idea of what the differences are; the pixel order is the way color information is written in the document, so with interleaved, each pixel is written in the RGB sequence (RGB, RGB, etc) while Per Channel is written in that order (RR, GG, BB etc). <br>

Save Image Pyramid: This is an option few need to worry about as few modern applications utilize this method of storing multiple resolution levels within a single document. If you’re old enough to recall Kodak PhotoCD, FlashPix or Live Picture’s IVUE format, you have experienced formats that used multiple resolution levels within a single document. TIFF also supports this mode and hence, its an option in the Save dialog. You probably have no reason use it however. </p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Layer Compression: How should the layer data be compressed? Note that with layers, it’s the pixels themselves, not the transparency that accounts for the increase in document size. So if you have a 2nd layer that is all pixel data, it will take up far more space than a layer that has only a small part of image data, surrounded by transparency (the checker board). An Adjustment layer is tiny, its essentially metadata describing a correction. RLE (Run Length Encoding) uses a lossless compression much like LZW on your layers. Or you can use Zip for an even smaller document but at the expense of speed in saving and opening the document. Both greatly aid in keeping the resulting TIFF with backwards compatibility to a manageable size. Your call here, faster speed or smaller documents? </p>

 

 

 

[Kent Shafer]

<p>Thanks, Andrew.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>@ Andrew</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>My question was "Which widely used photo editing programs cannot read PSD files?" Your answer did not contain the name of any program. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>My question was "Which widely used photo editing programs cannot read PSD files?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess we'd have to agree upon what is meant by <em>widely used</em> and <em>photo editing</em>. I can tell you I have a number of applications on this Mac that <strong>can</strong> open a layered TIFF (as flattened) and <strong>cannot</strong> open a PSD (layered or otherwise). That includes ColorThink Pro, PatchTool,Snapheal Pro, GamutWorks and i1Profiler. You can suggest they are not widely used. Or you can suggest they are not photo editors (one proposes to be as it's key role). But I'll argue that there's no advantage of PSD over TIFF and that <strong>there are far more</strong> applications that can open a TIFF then PSD so why would you save as PSD? If long term archival flexibility of raster data is on your radar, as other's have said, PSD is the wrong answer, TIFF is. </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I am not familiar with Mac software, so this is from Google searches on the software you cite:</p>

<p>ColorThink Pro, GamutWorks, and i1Profiler all seem to be ICC profilers for monitors and printers, not editing software or even software that would store images.</p>

<p>I cannot find much about PatchTool; Google keeps listing it for sail makers or listing tutorials for Photoshop. I know Photoshop can read PSD files :-).</p>

<p>As for Snapheal Pro, the web site states, "Snapheal Pro also supports .PSD". Scroll to the bottom of the page under Image Formats.<br /> http://www.macphun.com/snaphealpro</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not familiar with Mac software...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't have to be, the TIFF open's, the PSD's don't. You can try the same test on your end with whatever applications you have that can open a TIFF. There's simply no question that<strong> there are far more TIFF readers than PSD readers</strong>. And considering there is zero advantage to the PSD, <em>why</em> save in that format and limit the ability to send raster data to more places? Now IF you had some compelling advantage of PSD yet defined, or said you have plies of Duotone work, that be a different story. PSD isn't the '<em>native</em>' format of Photoshop from the first time you ideally save a layered document as TIFF. There simply isn't anything PSD brings to the party.</p>

<p>Jeff said it best: There is no reason for anyone, ever, to use PSD.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>I'm sorry for dragging this on, but it's a thing of paramount importance. If it's true that one loses nothing (except Duotone) by saving things in TIFF, that's quite a revolution in many ways. So, it's a matter worth clarifying.</p>

<p>Many perhaps remember how MS Word can save files in ODT format, and have had unpleasant experiences with other word processors being able to read reverse-engineered DOC better than openly documented ODT produced by MS Word. The situation here is structurally analogous, the differences may lie in the details, and the details can make the outcome be quite different. I hope so.</p>

<p>While I'd love it if Andrew turns out to be 100% correct, I am disturbed by his tone, which seems unexpectedly defensive. I can understand the frustration at continued use of an inferior alternative, if that's the case, but that should show only when the other party refused to listen, whereas here it's been present from the start in a 'newbie' thread, even in response to legitimate doubts. In such a situation, it hints more at insecurity than anything else. However, it's quite clear that that's not the case, so the signal is mixed. I hope we can sort it out from this point forward.</p>

<p>If I had Ps CC at my command, I could check it out by myself, but I currently don't. So I'll try to lay out the issues that need to be ascertained. I suggest reading to the end before thinking of intermediate replies.</p>

<p>- Ps will remember your selection of TIFF as the format to save new files. But will it not also remember the selection of other formats, not all of which are reported to be able to save everything? If it doesn't, then the fact that it does remember TIFF will be very significant (but vice-versa).</p>

<p>- Will Ps give a warning (cf MS Office) when you try to save a file, that some features may not be preserved? Namely, will it warn you that Duotone work will not be correctly saved in TIFF? If it does, then we may reasonably be confident that we run no risk of having stuff lost when saving to TIFF (but vice-versa).</p>

<p>- What does it mean that 3rd party software will open Ps TIFFs as flattened? In my jargon, flattened roughly means without layers, that is, a simple bitmap of x@y pixels and no additional structure. But most 3rd party software that reads PSD does read it with layers. It may not read everything correctly, and it's a moving target, so for that reason alone I'd love to ditch PSD, but the fact is that they do not read it flattened in the way I understand the word. Am I understanding it wrong?</p>

<p>- Whether by reverse engineering or some agreement, 3rd party programs that are able to read PSD are able to read a lot of proprietary Adobe features. They may not read PSD 100% correctly, but they know what they are trying to read, and where they can they do it right. Nothing guarantees us that they will know to apply such reasoning when reading a Photoshop TIFF, even if it would be little extra work. Yes, it can be argued that if they don't do it now, they'll be able to do it in the future, but we've had too many examples of how that's not guaranteed. It's not even certain that Adobe saves its proprietary data in a TIFF in the same way as it saves it in a PSD. This point needs further investigation, unless someone has already done it.</p>

<p>If all these points have satisfactory answers, then I'd be thrilled. I do hate proprietary formats. But at the same time I do know how they are often inevitable. In a way, it's all a matter of degree - at what level does 'proprietary' apply. At a low level, it's all bytes. Bytes are open. Anyone can read them. Then there's the 'container' level. PSD and TIFF are containers. TIFF is open as a container whereas PSD is not, but there is little to be done at the container level, so the fact that TIFF is open doesn't necessarily gain us that much. Then there's the payloads, and here is where the issue lies. TIFF may have rules on what it accepts as a payload and how certain things must be done, but that doesn't mean it mandates the whole logic of it, and that's where proprietariness can come in. It's a bit like having the decompiled code for a computer program, it can tell you what's being done at a minute level, but not necessarily what broader concepts are being achieved by those operations. And the difference here is that 3rd party software knows what to expect when reading a PSD, but not necessarily when it's a TIFF.</p>

<p>However, these are only concerns. If the points above have satisfactory answers, then they can mostly be laid to rest.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>While I'd love it if Andrew turns out to be 100% correct,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's quite easy for you to test on your end (as I've done). Again, I've got TIFFs and identical PSD's and I have software products that can open a layered TIFF but not it's PSD cousin. Try it for yourself. You don't need the latest version of Photoshop either. In a TIFF or PSD with layers and other proprietary Adobe technology, you have the option and you should pick it, to save a flattened version of that data in the file structure. Check your General Preferences>File Handling. CS4, CS6, CC-2014, doesn't matter, the properly saved PSD and TIFF are on equal grounds in terms of what and how non Adobe app's can access that data. And again, it's simply a fact that there are more TIFF readers than PSD readers! As for speed, on this end, saving a TIFF with ZIP compression versus a PSD, the two files open about the same (129mb file reported within PS). And if the TIFF took another second? Big deal. As for size on disk, PSD is a smaller on disk (43.mb) while the TIFF with comperssion is 80mb. Again, big deal. I'll take a bigger file that may open a tad slower but can open over a document <strong>I can't open</strong> any day of the week. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>- Ps will remember your selection of TIFF as the format to save new files. But will it not also remember the selection of other formats, not all of which are reported to be able to save everything? If it doesn't, then the fact that it does remember TIFF will be very significant (but vice-versa).</p>

</blockquote>

PS settings are sticky. Save a JPEG, you'll get that option next time IF JPEG is appropriate. 16-bit data, forget that sticky setting as you can't save JPEG in high bit. Nor layers. So if you're working with layered data and the like, you've got few choices and those you make are sticky so pick TIFF and be done (unless you instead what a JPEG, or GIF).

<blockquote>

<p>Will Ps give a warning (cf MS Office) when you try to save a file, that some features may not be preserved? Namely, will it warn you that Duotone work will not be correctly saved in TIFF? If it does, then we may reasonably be confident that we run no risk of having stuff lost when saving to TIFF (but vice-versa).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it pops a warning about maximize PSD compatibility but the user can dismiss it and set it not to ever show again. In terms of Duotone, this is again like the JPEG analogy above. IF PS can't save in a format, it will not allow you to select something it can't support. Again, you can easily test this on your end by making a Duotone and attempting to save it. Examine the options in the dropdown menu for file format (you'll see no TIFF or JPEG etc). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>- What does it mean that 3rd party software will open Ps TIFFs as flattened?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> It means the proprietary layers are <strong>not</strong> accessible and as far as you are concerned, this image is the equivalent of flatting all the layers in a PS doc and saving it as such. You see the same color appearance you did in PS but all layers are gone. That's proprietary Adobe processing. Same with Smart Objects and a huge list of unique Adobe features. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Whether by reverse engineering or some agreement, 3rd party programs that are able to read PSD are able to read a lot of proprietary Adobe features.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> There is a difference betweeen reading and editing that data! It is possible that 3rd party app's with PSD support can show you the layers intact but you can't edit them, that's Adobe's domain. For all practical purposes it behaves as flattened. After all, the entire idea behind layers is to control editing of those pixels from the other's. Proprietary processing is just that, proprietary. As soon as you leave Adobe land, you leave their proprietary processing and start afresh with new proprietary processing (in the new app). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>TIFF is open as a container whereas PSD is not, but there is little to be done at the container level, so the fact that TIFF is open doesn't necessarily gain us that much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> It gains wider support and thus longer archival properties. If you are sure you'll NEVER leave Adobe processing OR hope to open the data outside of an Adobe app, you can stick with PSD. But why? There's NO advantage other than a smaller document after which there are only disadvantages. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>TIFF may have rules on what it accepts as a payload and how certain things must be done, but that doesn't mean it mandates the whole logic of it, and that's where proprietariness can come in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both TIFF and PSD are totally controlled by Adobe. As of today, the differences are TIFF doesn't support Duotone, Adobe could change that if they wanted to (as if anyone really uses that). It's an open format which means proprietariness(?) is documented while with PSD you still have to pay a licensing to Adobe to use it. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>While I'd love it if Andrew turns out to be 100% correct, I am disturbed by his tone, which seems unexpectedly defensive. I can understand the frustration at continued use of an inferior alternative, if that's the case, but that should show only when the other party refused to listen, whereas here it's been present from the start in a 'newbie' thread, even in response to legitimate doubts. In such a situation, it hints more at insecurity than anything else. However, it's quite clear that that's not the case, so the signal is mixed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He's long ago killed the party here, António. It matters not how many times or how many people he insults...it's his MO and something you have to try and put up with</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Well António, there you have it. After 31 posts on topic and about file formats, right on queue Eric posts nothing on the subject and instead slings mud, <strong>his MO.</strong> There's a name for people who enter forums, attempt to incite and have nothing useful to contribute, I'm sure you and everyone other than Eric understand that:<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)<br>

In <a title="Internet slang" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang">Internet slang</a>, a <strong>troll</strong> (<a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">ˈ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">t</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">r</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">oʊ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">l</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a>, <a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">ˈ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">t</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">r</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">ɒ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">l</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a>) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,<sup id="cite_ref-Campbell-Trolls_1-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Campbell-Trolls-1">[1]</a></sup> by posting inflammatory,<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> <a title="wikt:extraneous" href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective">extraneous</a>, or <a title="Off-topic" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic">off-topic</a> messages in an online community (such as a forum,<a title="Chat room" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room">chat room</a>, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an <a title="Emotion" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion">emotional</a> response<sup id="cite_ref-PCMAG_def_3-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-PCMAG_def-3">[3]</a></sup> or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.<sup id="cite_ref-IUKB_def_4-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-IUKB_def-4">[4]</a></sup></p>

<p>Anyway, it does appear you did gain some insight about file formats, what TIFF offers etc. Not a complete loss till you know who showed up! </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>TIFF does support private tags:<br>

<em><strong>Private TIFF tags</strong> are, at least originally, allocated by Adobe for organizations that wish to store information meaningful only to that organization in a TIFF file. The private tags listed here are the ones that found their way into the public domain and more general applications, and the ones that the owning organizations documented for the benefit of the TIFF community.</em><br>

http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/private.html</p>

<p>DNG which is a cousin of TIFF (based on TIFF EP) also allows private tags. So if some company wishes to store some secret sauce in the container, that's allowed. </p>