Guy Gowan > Tiffs are outdated?

[morsome]

Hi All,

I was at a seminar the other day, where Guy Gowan was talking about Photoshop & Working Smart (or selling his action sets). He made a throw away comment about the Tiff file format being outdated and that he only uses PSD & JPG.

I can't think of a reason why I would save a file in PSD format over TIFF. I use adjustment layers, layer masks, paths, etc and have never found the need to save a file in PSD format.

If I save one of my TIFFs as a PSD it jumps from 37.7Mb to 72.4Mb. I save my TIFFs with LZW Compression, Per Channel Pixel Order, with Transparency and Zip Layer Compression.

So does anyone know why I should be using PSD format?

 

[Kerioak]

Why not contact him and ask what he meant by it as it has been puzzling you since the seminar ? There are probably a few reasons - although I would have thought DNG might be the way to go for the future rather than PSD ?

 

[Photodiva]

I ALWAYS save my working file as a .psd. Don't bother with .tif. Storage space is relatively cheap these days, can't see a problem. My work flow is RAW - PSD - JPG (when I make an image for the web or send to printers etc.)

One thing is you can save your editing history in the .psd file, I don't think you can do that with .tif.

Tif used to be for when you sent a file to printers or another person with an image editing program that wasn't Photoshop. Now that Adobe products interact (Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop etc) it doesn't seem so important.

I'm inclined to agree with Guy Gowan here.

 

[swanseamale47]

Why not contact him and ask what he meant by it as it has been puzzling you since the seminar ? There are probably a few reasons - although I would have thought DNG might be the way to go for the future rather than PSD ?

Except you can't save as a DNG from photoshop.

 

[mattyh]

I can honestly say I've never used a TIFF file, unless I've been sent one by someone else - PSD is fine for me, then JPG once the image is finished (I don't often use PSD's tbh either as my editing tends to be done in one go)

 

[swanseamale47]

If I'm working with layers I'll usually use PSD but theres not much in it really.

 

[nano]

Well, tiff is a bit outdated.

You have the raw from the camera, the psd to do your work on and the jpg to deliver (via web)

I use the psd for an archive as it has all my layers and such so i can go back and tweek things easier. Okay, the file size is a bit bigger but when a 1TB drive costs £50 i don't really mind, thats something like 14,000 edit ready images i can store before having to fork out another £50 (or £35 it'll be before i get to that stage). If i shot 10 images a day (everyday) that i wanted to photoshop and archive then thats almost 4 years it'll take to fill that drive. I'll pay £12.50/year to have a layered psd rather than a tiff!

Actually i'd pay £25/year to keep a backup as well