PSD allows layers and other special features and is quite a bit larger
than TIFF (I think). Unless you are adding text or something, there is
no need to save as PSD. Jpeg compression simplifies similar regions into
blocky chunks. Do a test saving at a high compression level to jpeg and
zoom in very close to see and understand the damage that is done with a
jpeg save. Large gradated skys and gradual tones like that can sometimes
get awful effects from saving as a jpeg. Very complex detailed images
will not compress as much in jpeg format. I always save the original
jpeg images from my camera and generally save again after modifications
in jpeg at a pretty high quality depending on the purpose. If it's a
prize photo with heavy manipulation I might want to save as PSD so I can
go back & re-adjust masks and adjustment layers. If it's a simple
adjustment, I can always go back to the original if it's needed for
extra large prints.
If you have enough memory cards and don't mind downloading often it's
best to use the non-jpeg option then probably convert that to TIF since
it's more standard. I go out in the field and like to take hundreds of
pictures in a day so I can't afford to use the tif mode on my camera.
Another consideration is that the embedded EXIF information about the
exposure, etc may be lost when converting from the original. Keeping
unaltered originals is always a good idea unless you are sure this info
won't be lost.
UCLA Fan wrote:
>I understand that manipulating JPEG and than resaving causes a loss of
>pixels. My Camera does have a RAW mode but I shoot JPEG only. My question
>is, is there a difference in converting my files to TIFF vs. PSD before
>editing occurs? Does one provide a better format to work with or a higher
>quality image.
>
>TIA
>Ken
>
>
>
> >> Stay informed about: TIFF vs. PSD formats 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
