Saving as .psd versus .tiff

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,863
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
This is an interesting conversation. I never use TIFF. I had no idea it had the same features as a PSD. I always kinda though TIFF was an older file format that had fallen out of favor.
It is probably more accurate to say "it can have the same features as PSD". Adobe and others have done a good job adding better support for it so that it can be used far more than in the past.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
681
Location
USA
My experience is that TIFFs take forever to open compared to PSD files. I stopped using TIFFs shortly after I began consistently using Photoshop.
This is curious because psd files have compression enabled by default and tiffs do not. Since a compressed image has to be processed to a greater degree by the cpu, this usually means it takes longer to open (and save) than one that is uncompressed. So unless you made some changes to the PS defaults, tiffs, without compression, should open/save more quickly.

AFAIK the only thing that tiffs cannot do vis-à-vis psds is save a duotone (or multitone) file, a feature that is, last I checked, the sole province of the Adobe file formats and one that 99.9% of people care nothing about.

I use all the file types, psd, psb and tiff. I used tiff exclusively for a time because Capture One did not support psd thumbs in the browser or maybe even the import process. Eventually C1 did come to support psds but the thumbnail generation was inconsistent so I continued to use tiffs. Now I've just about settled on using psb as my default since a fair amount of my work grows too large for the other containers. It's also a possible safeguard in that a few years ago I had a file that was near, but not over, the file size limit of either psd or tiff (don't remember which now). It saved just fine but I could not re-open it, never did figure out why. It might not have been a size issue, but why take chances?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
17,390
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
My experience is that TIFFs take forever to open compared to PSD files. I stopped using TIFFs shortly after I began consistently using Photoshop.
I have not found that to be consistently true in my PS CC 16 bit work flow
This is curious because psd files have compression enabled by default and tiffs do not. Since a compressed image has to be processed to a greater degree by the cpu, this usually means it takes longer to open (and save) than one that is uncompressed. So unless you made some changes to the PS defaults, tiffs, without compression, should open/save more quickly.
It might be helpful to clarify that though my experience is that TIFFs take so much longer than PSD files to open, I was surprised to learn (thanks to this discussion) that it has already been three years since I've used TIFFs. Perhaps something has changed during those three years that would affect performance time.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom