TIFF vs PSD

I posted this in the nearby thread "Optimal TIFF Image Size," but feel it has broader ramifications.

Anyone heard of such a thing?

When meeting last week with a graphic artist I've partnered with before and respect greatly, she wondered why the files were tiffs. That threw me for a loop!

I pointed out that the client had specified tiffs, and that we were looking at original capture. I had the sense to ask WHY she questioned the use of tiffs.

Her answer was new to me and a real kick in the gut: "Because sometimes there are problems with tiffs, most notably perverted files on later opening."

Whoa!

I asked about alternatives, and she said that psd's were much more stable and reliable?

Anyone else ever hear such a thing?

Sign me "Konfoozed in Kodiak."

I've not had any problems with either layered or flattened tiff files. I do not save tiff files with any compression, however. I wonder if compressed tiff files might get perverted?

If tiff files are 'perverted', do they have to report their residence address to law enforcement?

One thing I have noticed is that in PS-CS2, tiff files take longer to save than do *.psd files. I wonder if that is because psd files are native to Photo Shop, while tiff files are not.

From a workflow standpoint, and assuming one has the disk space, wouldn't it be prudent to save a file in both formats in case there is a problem?

Has the artist who made the comment experienced any issues? If so, under what conditions did they occur? Such info would be helpful, I think.

Hank, I am always dazed and confused, and at my age, I have earned the right to be so!

-P

Hank,

I've not heard of that issue either. As most reputable on-line printers request .tiffs (but never .psd) I wonder how wide spread this issue could be. Personally I save layered files as .psd format because as Preston mentions, they save faster. All my clients want .tiffs (mostly city agencies) so I save anything for a client as such.

I’ll be interested in hearing more info on the subject.

Cheers,
Alex

So, if the file is converted back from a .tiff to .psd does that fix things? Sort of like going from RGB to CMYK when gamut warning is exceeded.
I will say like Preston mentioned already, .psd seems to be better to work in for a bit of speed and saving, but I always convert to .tiffs in the end and have never had issues in that format at all.

She said it in passing while we were deep in a project, and I didn't dig deeper. I just phoned and rechecked with her, and it's something she picked up recently from NAPP. To the best of her recollection it spins around TIFF files compressed with layers, but she's promised to go back and confirm. I don't compress, so that's a relief.

Hank -

Here's a technical discussion of "perverted tiffs." I've never encountered one myself. Perverts, yes. Perverted tiffs, no.

Jim

I doubt what she was saying. Not that I doubt that a rare Tiff might have a problem, but that Psd would be any better. Never heard of anyone wanting a Psd?

I experimented a bit and found psd's save in smaller files than tiff's, Seeing as I am dealing in huge scans with layers stacked on top, I switched over to psd's. I did not compress my tiff's.

I have never experienced an issue with TIFF. I do not compress when I save and I save in layered form. However, I always save and keep the original RAW. Of course, this is only helpful to save an archive of the digital negative. Any processing work I may have done would be lost if the TIFF file is corrupted. FWIW, I always have 3 backups, so if there is a problem hopefully they are not all corrupted.

The link Jim provided appears to deal with problems a software from Math Works has with opening very large (1GB+) files that are in TIFF format.

This is the first I've heard of any problem with TIFF as a format. What I have heard is that Adobe intends to phase out PSD as a file format and consequently I have begun converting from RAW to TIFF rather than PSD. I won't swear to it but I think I got that info from NAPP, either the magazine or on the website but I don't remember for sure. It might have been from Deke McLelland (one of his training videos). I do remember that Deke recommended using LZW compression if you do compress your TIFFs because it is lossless.

Jim Bullard
http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/

Maybe she's the one who is confused and actually meant Jpegs as perverts (who would've thought it! ), not Tiffs.

Photoshop guru Jeff Schewe is also now saying to use TIF instead of PSD.

If I understand what she's saying - a corrupt TIFF will look worse than a corrupt PSD. This may have something to do with the data structure. It's possible that a corrupt PSD may be easier to salvage. Either way, the solution is to avoid corrupting your master files by keeping backups.

Guy

I agree with Guy. If you assume that your going to have issues, then maybe PSDs are better (perhaps their structure is less prone to corruption in the first place, even). The solution is probably to avoid issues and corruption in the first place with good backup strategies.

...Adobe intends to phase out PSD as a file format

I would be pretty shocked if that were the case. Is there a reference for that anywhere, Jim?

"Adobe intends to phase out PSD as a file format"

If Adoobie does this, it will be a big PITA. The ramifications of such a change would be huge.

I am with David on this: Is there anything definitive out there? I'd certainly be proactive, rather than be caught with my pants down in such a snow storm.

-P

I'm a professional graphic artist, and I couldn't disagree more. I avoid PSD like the plague. Well, not really, but PSD is a proprietary format. And will not entrust the integrity of my entire photo (or graphics) collection to a proprietary format. It CAN disappear, and I think it likely will (I've heard hints for years, but nothing firm). There will always be ways of using/converting propriety files (I hope), but it's generally a better idea to use a widely adapted format like TIFF. At least, that's what I strongly recommend.

It's simply never a good idea to use the built-in format compression options. Whether it's perversion or prepress glitches, compression (esp LZW) can cause all types of headaches. Storage is too cheap these days to bother.

I can't document that David. As I said I don't recall exactly where I heard/read/saw it and it was several months ago. As I recall it was couched in terms of Adobe moving long term toward open file formats rather than the proprietary PSD format. That fits with their commitment to DNG. Jeff Schewe's reasoning for preferring TIFF can be found here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t17170.html. I didn't get the impression that Adobe has a plan to drop it precipitously but rather that they would let PSD die rather than further developing it as their software progresses.

Jim Bullard
West Stockholm, NY
http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/

Hank, sometimes we make decisions with little, no or rumored info. In this case, stick to your position and use Tiff. Its a universally accepted format vs PS' proprietary Psd. Take her out for a beer and discussion of the pros and cons of Psd vs Tiff. Have fun. Its all bs anyway.

Bill Brennan

Thanks Bill!

She and I are winding toward the end of this project and she promises to go digging for her source afterward. In the meantime, the beer sounds like a great idea before, during and after.

I always use TIFs, even for layered working files. The PSD file format is deprecated and proprietary. There's been a lot of discussion about this, largely spearheaded by Jeff Schewe; see the link above.

TIF supports everything a PSD does - layers, type, vector objects, etc. and is a widely documented, open format. So it has much more compatibility and viability long term.

The only problem I've ever heard of with TIFs is that some older RIPs can't properly process them if they're LZW compressed.

"The only problem I've ever heard of with TIFs is that some older RIPs can't properly process them if they're LZW compressed."

She got back to me the other day and I forgot to return to this thread. She said essentially the same thing.