Question about TIFs for Photoshop CC gurus

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, Tony, for your comprehensive reply. I am already familiar with everything you brought to light. I began using TIF files because I had read Jeff Schewe's comment that PSDs have no advantage over TIF files. He is wrong today at least at it applies to my system in that so far I can reliably only open PSD files with the layers displayed, whereas opening TIF files that way is unreliable.

 

[Ann_JS]

Bear in mind that Schewe is a strong proponent of Lr and, until recently, Lr did not handle the back and forth between Lr and Ps very well. If I remember correctly, earlier versions of Lr couldn't even read a PSD.

I do not use Lr and have no interest in editing in other than ACR and Ps so I have no need to worry about compatibility with other manufacturers software.

For Press output these days we send Press-ready CMYK PDFs so there is no longer a need to send tiffs to publications.

 

[Growltiger]

Layered TIF files have always had issues and I avoid them. This is simply because some programs don't support them properly. I expect if you stick to using them with Photoshop you should not have a problem. But if you use them in other programs I advise testing carefully first, writing and reading files between all the programs you plan to use them with.

I wonder which version of Photoshop CC had written the files that started this thread?

Is there a size limit on TIFs like there is on PSDs? I have had to use PSBs a few times to overcome the PSD limit.

 

[TonyW]

Thank you, Tony, for your comprehensive reply. I am already familiar with everything you brought to light. I began using TIF files because I had read Jeff Schewe's comment that PSDs have no advantage over TIF files. He is wrong today at least at it applies to my system in that so far I can reliably only open PSD files with the layers displayed, whereas opening TIF files that way is unreliable.

Mike, I thought you probably already familiar, but quoted just in case. I can understand your reluctance to avoid layered TIFF and as I cannot think of any ‘cure’ for this behaviour with TIFF only it does seem that PSD or PSB your best option

Layered TIF files have always had issues and I avoid them. This is simply because some programs don't support them properly. I expect if you stick to using them with Photoshop you should not have a problem. But if you use them in other programs I advise testing carefully first, writing and reading files between all the programs you plan to use them with.

I wonder which version of Photoshop CC had written the files that started this thread?

Is there a size limit on TIFs like there is on PSDs? I have had to use PSBs a few times to overcome the PSD limit.

TIFF specifications addressing 32 bit offsets allow for a maximum file size of 4GB

PSD limited to 2GB due to file format and compatibility with other apps.

PSB will support up to 4 Exabytes

There are good reasons why Jeff Schewe is a proponent of working in LR as in many cases you do not need to leave the editing environment of working with raw data from ingesting images to print output for inkjet. That is you edit in the ACR/LR space (ProPhoto RGB coordinates with 1.0 gamma). Soft proof with a good Paper profile and output direct from LR to print

 

[Growltiger]

TIFF specifications addressing 32 bit offsets allow for a maximum file size of 4GB

PSD limited to 2GB due to file format and compatibility with other apps.

PSB will support up to 4 Exabytes

Thanks.
I have not gone much over 2GB. However it would not be hard with a large canvas and multiple layers to exceed 4GB, at which point PSB would be the only option.

 

[TonyW]

Thanks.
I have not gone much over 2GB. However it would not be hard with a large canvas and multiple layers to exceed 4GB, at which point PSB would be the only option.

Yes, PSB would seem to be the logical option within PS or other Adobe apps.

But there is at least one other option called BIGTIFF supporting up to 18,000 Petabytes (I think!).

I have never needed to go this far but AFAIK PS since version CS6 can read BIGTIFF but unsure of the current state of play relating to writing (CS6 could only read) and if the format is useful outside of medical imaging speciality and/or if there is any advantage over PSB other than open source documentation
BigTIFF

 

[Butlerkid]

Yes, PSB would seem to be the logical option within PS or other Adobe apps.

But there is at least one other option called BIGTIFF supporting up to 18,000 Petabytes (I think!).

I have never needed to go this far but AFAIK PS since version CS6 can read BIGTIFF but unsure of the current state of play relating to writing (CS6 could only read) and if the format is useful outside of medical imaging speciality and/or if there is any advantage over PSB other than open source documentation
BigTIFF

I just think it is indefensible that LR does not support - even viewing - psb files. It's their format, after all. With large megapixel cameras, it is fairly easy to exceed 2 gb file size, especially if doing panos.

 

[Growltiger]

Yes, PSB would seem to be the logical option within PS or other Adobe apps.

But there is at least one other option called BIGTIFF supporting up to 18,000 Petabytes (I think!).

I have never needed to go this far but AFAIK PS since version CS6 can read BIGTIFF but unsure of the current state of play relating to writing (CS6 could only read) and if the format is useful outside of medical imaging speciality and/or if there is any advantage over PSB other than open source documentation
BigTIFF

Very interesting, I had never heard of BigTIFF.
18,000 Petabytes should keep us going for some time, but we will need more memory.

 

[Growltiger]

I just think it is indefensible that LR does not support - even viewing - psb files. It's their format, after all. With large megapixel cameras, it is fairly easy to exceed 2 gb file size, especially if doing panos.

Yes I agree. But I think that Lightroom is really for processing raw files, and none of those come near to 2GB.
You can process the individual pano images in LR and then assemble the pano in PS and save as a PSB.

 

[Butlerkid]

Yes I agree. But I think that Lightroom is really for processing raw files, and none of those come near to 2GB.
You can process the individual pano images in LR and then assemble the pano in PS and save as a PSB.

But Adobe brags about what a great data base they have to manage ALL your photos. NOT! You can't even see that .psb files exist in the data base.

 

[Growltiger]

But Adobe brags about what a great data base they have to manage ALL your photos. NOT! You can't even see that .psb files exist in the data base.

Ah yes, I had forgotten that. Yes, it is ridiculous that you can't catalogue your PSBs.
I don't suppose they have fixed that in the new Classic version.

 

[Mike Buckley]

But I think that Lightroom is really for processing raw files, and none of those come near to 2GB.

Is that file size true also for medium format cameras? I ask because I have no idea.

 

[TonyW]

I just think it is indefensible that LR does not support - even viewing - psb files. It's their format, after all. With large megapixel cameras, it is fairly easy to exceed 2 gb file size, especially if doing panos.

I agree that it does seem to be a very strange ommission as it is their own and proprietary format.

Here are some of the things Adobe have to say, suggesting that they seem to favour TIFF:
Lightroom Classic CC supports large documents saved in TIFF format (up to 65,000 pixels per side).
However, most other applications, including older versions of Photoshop (pre-Photoshop CS), do not support documents with file sizes greater than 2 GB. Lightroom
Classic CC can import 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit TIFF images.
The TIFF format provides greater compression and industry compatibility than Photoshop format (PSD), and is the recommended format for exchanging files between Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop. In Lightroom Classic CC, you can export TIFF image files with a bit depth of 8 bits or 16 bits per channel.

As LR and ACR really designed for the editing of raw and other camera format image files and current support limited to raw, TIFF and JPEG with the inclusion of PSD perhaps Adobe think they are giving us a bonus by including a non camera format?

Still does not geta away from the fact that PSB is their image format and should IMHO be catered for within LR and ACR.

There is a cottage industry producing plug ins that attempt to correct what are seen by some as Adobe shortfalls. One such plugin to unlimit file types is:
Any File Lightroom Plugin

Never tried it so no idea if it works satisfactorily

 

[TonyW]

Is that file size true also for medium format cameras? I ask because I have no idea.

Yes there is no MF format that I am aware of that comes anywhere near the 'limits'.
Taking the 100 MP Hasselblad H6D-100c as an example. It uses a FF 645 format sensor (53.4 x 40.0) and captures images as 16 bit raw. The raw capture size 207MB average. The 100 MP file (11600 x 8700 pixels) will come in around 580 MB when brought into PS

 

[Ann_JS]

Frankly, Lr was introduced specifically to cater for "Photographers" (level of experience was never stated!) who might be over-whelmed by the full array of tools available in Ps itself.

To me, Lr has always been far too limited in its capabilities and in its integration with professional-level Graphic Arts applications.
It has a UI which I find too cutesy and irritating to a degree and it is still far too slow.
I do not need it's Catalogue because good key-wording and my own file-organisation means that I can find any image I have taken on film or digitally in the past 60 years in just a few minutes.

Early versions of Lr could not handle PSDs and PSBs (which explains the burst of promotional talk about the so called superiority of Tiff by certain individuals who were closely involved in the early development of Lr).

The extolling of Tif seems to have dried-up in more recent years?!!

For my own purposes, Bridge-hosted ACR offers ALL the professional-level tools that Lr contains but, most importantly, Bridge integrates seamlessly with Ps, Ai, InD and Acrobat which are the programs I need on a daily basis.

 

[Growltiger]

Yes there is no MF format that I am aware of that comes anywhere near the 'limits'.
Taking the 100 MP Hasselblad H6D-100c as an example. It uses a FF 645 format sensor (53.4 x 40.0) and captures images as 16 bit raw. The raw capture size 207MB average. The 100 MP file (11600 x 8700 pixels) will come in around 580 MB when brought into PS

So I deduce that for a camera raw file to exceed the 2GB limit it would need to be about 350 MP.
What is the sensor in the world now that has the most pixels?
And when will a 350 MP sensor be available?
Perhaps there are specialised giant sensors now?

 

[Butlerkid]

So I deduce that for a camera raw file to exceed the 2GB limit it would need to be about 350 MP.
What is the sensor in the world now that has the most pixels?
And when will a 350 MP sensor be available?
Perhaps there are specialised giant sensors now?

Large panos can easily exceed 2 gb. I've only done a few panos........but as layered editing is accomplished, the file size can grow quickly. I suspect this is also true of focus stacking/pixel shifting involving a large number of files. Is exceeding 2 GB common? No. But for some applications, it is more likely.

 

[Growltiger]

Large panos can easily exceed 2 gb. I've only done a few panos........but as layered editing is accomplished, the file size can grow quickly. I suspect this is also true of focus stacking/pixel shifting involving a large number of files. Is exceeding 2 GB common? No. But for some applications, it is more likely.

True, but I question whether pixel editing tasks like this should be done in Lightroom.

 

[Butlerkid]

True, but I question whether pixel editing tasks like this should be done in Lightroom.

No they shouldn't! That's not the point. The point is that a "complete" Adobe photo data base should at least include an indication/preview that the Adobe .psb photos exist !

 

[Growltiger]

No they shouldn't! That's not the point. The point is that a "complete" Adobe photo data base should at least include an indication/preview that the Adobe .psb photos exist !

And I agree completely with you. It is ridiculous that LR remains blind to their existence.