What is the best file type?

R
Posted By
Robert
Sep 6, 2006
Views
989
Replies
10
Status
Closed
What is the best file type? It depends on what you want to do.

I don’t know what the limitations and advantages of the different types are. I understand a little. I just recently switched to CS2. I am now into using only Adobe’s programs for max compatibility. I am evaluating my work flow. And plan on making some changes. Some of below I know is true, some is obsolete, some I think is, and some is true with particular settings. Below is a list of what I consider the major file formats worth using.

JPG

lots of different settings and flavors. The big advantage is file size. It has a loss compression. What this means is each time you save the file, it looses a little. I assume that this dose not matter on saves within the editing session.( edit, save, edit, save, edit, close) I assume the only loss is happening on the last save, or close. How much loss, or errors introduced by the file format is dependent on the compression settings. Layers and masking is not an option. I think the file is limited to 24bit RGB. Web compatible.

PSD

No compression, a lot of editing function capable, such as layers, and masks. Not as compatible with others. Some editing packages can only open particular versions of this. For example if you created a PSD in PS CS2 someone else using Corel 11 could not open it. Capable of many different modes. At its extreme it is capable of 96bit RGB. Not directly web compatible

RAW

Very proprietary, for cameras. Most information from the camera. Very large file size. Must be adjusted to be used. IE white balance, and sharpening are needed. Not directly web compatible

Tiff

Great compatibility, I think it is compatible with layers.

Gif

Small, lossy, web compatible masks. Limited to 255 colors.

It is my opinion how best to use the above formats is:

Shoot JPG most of the time, for files that I don’t want to require the time to adjust.

For photos I want the best possible quality, use Raw. Then save as PSD keeping the un-flattened edits.

Save the edited JPGs as PSD or back as JPG depending on quality and future of the image.

I had not looked into digital negative format. I have not seen TGA formats in a while, and don’t know what is wrong or right with it. There are a lot of formats, available.

I look forward to seeing the comments, and recommendations.
Related Tags
best file type

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

R
Roberto
Sep 6, 2006
It does depend on what you want to do. JPG is great for the web for photos. However for archiving it sucks since it is lossy. PSD Adobe wants to move people away from (at least that is what some of the Adobe people have said in the Adobe Forums). They recommend TIFF, it supports everything PSD does but has better compression. I use .TIFF for archiving. I convert all JPG’s from my camera to compressed TIFFs (zip compression, it should be an option in whatever program you use to save TIFFs). Jpg’s I only use for the web. I will leave some images as PSD if it has layers and the like. While TIFF will save with layers few programs support that flavor of TIFF. Photoshop does but others choke on it, at least for right now. So for layered images and images with layer masks, alpha channels, layer effects, adjustment layers, etc. that I don’t want to flatten I save as PSD.

R

"Robert" wrote in message
What is the best file type? It depends on what you want to do.
I don’t know what the limitations and advantages of the different types are. I understand a little. I just recently switched to CS2. I am now into using only Adobe’s programs for max compatibility. I am evaluating my work flow. And plan on making some changes. Some of below I know is true, some is obsolete, some I think is, and some is true with particular settings. Below is a list of what I consider the major file formats worth using.

JPG

lots of different settings and flavors. The big advantage is file size. It has a loss compression. What this means is each time you save the file, it looses a little. I assume that this dose not matter on saves within the editing session.( edit, save, edit, save, edit, close) I assume the only loss is happening on the last save, or close. How much loss, or errors introduced by the file format is dependent on the compression settings. Layers and masking is not an option. I think the file is limited to 24bit RGB. Web compatible.

PSD

No compression, a lot of editing function capable, such as layers, and masks. Not as compatible with others. Some editing packages can only open particular versions of this. For example if you created a PSD in PS CS2 someone else using Corel 11 could not open it. Capable of many different modes. At its extreme it is capable of 96bit RGB. Not directly web compatible

RAW

Very proprietary, for cameras. Most information from the camera. Very large file size. Must be adjusted to be used. IE white balance, and sharpening are needed. Not directly web compatible

Tiff

Great compatibility, I think it is compatible with layers.

Gif

Small, lossy, web compatible masks. Limited to 255 colors.

It is my opinion how best to use the above formats is:

Shoot JPG most of the time, for files that I don’t want to require the time to adjust.

For photos I want the best possible quality, use Raw. Then save as PSD keeping the un-flattened edits.

Save the edited JPGs as PSD or back as JPG depending on quality and future of the image.

I had not looked into digital negative format. I have not seen TGA formats in a while, and don’t know what is wrong or right with it. There are a lot of formats, available.

I look forward to seeing the comments, and recommendations.
BP
Barry Pearson
Sep 7, 2006
Robert wrote:
What is the best file type? It depends on what you want to do.

[snip]
I had not looked into digital negative format.
[snip]

You can read about DNG here:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/

Potential benefits for photographers here:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
T
Tacit
Sep 8, 2006
In article <edmtge$>,
"Robert" wrote:

PSD

No compression, …

Incorrect. PSD uses lossless compression.

Gif

Small, lossy,…

Technically, GIF is lossless; it uses lossless LZW compression. It works only with 256 colors; it is the reduction in the number of colors, not the saving as GIF per se, that causes loss. If you have a picture that is already 256 colors or fewer, GIF is lossless.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
R
Robert
Sep 8, 2006
I am using PS-cs2 and I didn’t see the option for compression using PSD format. Maybe the fact that I cary a white cane has something to do with it. It appears that the compression is very little. I should do a comparison, not just the general impression. The image content dramaticly affects file size, with compression. I will do that this weekend, and post.

I thougth this topic would generate a lot of oppionions. It is hard to read the specs on a file type and see how well it is accepted. what the advantages and disadvantages in the real world.

It would be good to see a list of what different people are using. Then it would be great if they included a small paragraph what is good and bad. The last time I looked into file types was 15 years ago. It may have changed. The major issues are still the same: Compatiblity (what programs can use it), Capability (layers, transparentcy, vector, color modes…), and Compression (loss, file size). I am sure everybody can learn something. New people can point out the new specs. Old people can show the benifits of real world experiance. Everybody wins.

The specs on DGD look good. I need to try that out for where in the workflow it should, and where it shouldn’t.

Robert

"tacit" wrote in message
In article <edmtge$>,
"Robert" wrote:

PSD

No compression, …

Incorrect. PSD uses lossless compression.

Gif

Small, lossy,…

Technically, GIF is lossless; it uses lossless LZW compression. It works only with 256 colors; it is the reduction in the number of colors, not the saving as GIF per se, that causes loss. If you have a picture that is already 256 colors or fewer, GIF is lossless.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
TE
Toke Eskildsen
Sep 8, 2006
Robert wrote:

The last time I looked into file types was 15 years ago. It may have changed.

One reason for the missing debate might be that the world has converged to a smaller number of formats for bitmaps. One grouping of formats might be

– Camera RAW
Two obvious choices: The proprietary RAW from the camera and DNG.

– Working format / high quality
More choices, the obvious ones being whatever proprietary format one’s program uses, TIFF and PNG.

– Presentation / low filesize
JPEG or PNG, depending on the image. If it weren’t for animated images, GIF should be long gone, replaced by PNG.

It mostly boild down to choosing between proprietary semi-closed formats or more open formats (RAW/PSD vs. DNG/TIFF, PNG). Personally I lean towards the open ones, but I also tend to think of preservation in terms of decades.

My biggest gripe with TIFF is that it’s a container format, capable of holding almost everything. At work, I encountered a series of TIFFs which were three layered, with the middle layer being compressed by some semi-standardized sort of JPEG, which were officially unadvised 10 years ago (IrfanView could handle it, so the data was restored).

PNG is simpler in that aspect. Is has some shortcomings, mainly that it can only hold one layer and that it only supports RGB, but the format is fixed, so it is possible (and easy, as the code is freely available) for at program to have full support for every possible PNG 1.0 image. The same goes for JFIF JPEG. I don’t know about DNG.
—
Toke Eskildsen – http://ekot.dk/
T
Tacit
Sep 9, 2006
In article <edrv9e$>,
"Robert" wrote:

I am using PS-cs2 and I didn’t see the option for compression using PSD format. Maybe the fact that I cary a white cane has something to do with it. It appears that the compression is very little. I should do a comparison, not just the general impression. The image content dramaticly affects file size, with compression. I will do that this weekend, and post.

There’s no option for compression on a PSD file; it’s always compressed. However, it uses a fast but simple compression algorithm that doesn’t offer very much savings to complex photographic images that have a lot of detail. It works best on large areas of the same color, so it excels on masks and the like.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
F
fleming
Sep 10, 2006
Thank you for a great explanation. It is something I can use, its concise, and it makes sense.
That type of compression would work well for layers of adjustments, and masks, but not much for images.

If I am wanting to place a file in illustrator, and eventually take it to a print house. Should I keep it in PSD or flatten and take it to TIF? I assume I should avoid keeping many versions of the same file. file size alone will eat me alive. It is not the obvious disk space problem. It is finding the file needed. If you multiply all the useful photos by 3 different file types, then try to find a particular image, it makes a lot more work. This can be improved with good file management and folder structure. Not to mention what version should I use. It dose provide some fall back options for corrupted files. The basic workflow with regards to file type is something like:

Shoot in RAW (for any planed quality images, JPG for concept and low quality) My Nikon D200 dose not support DGN

Maybe convert to DGN and discard the RAW?

Sort photos into "keep", "maybe", and "trash". Backup the "keep" and "maybe"

Edit and save the file in PSD

Should it be used directly as a PSD. Flattened for max compatibility? Left layered for max editable? Converted to TIF or EPS?

The way I normally work I try to put together some basic concepts as quick as possible, from start to finish. Then go back and polish the parts that need it as time allows. Allowing me to correct only the images used as a set. What this means is I don’t like flattening the images.

When done with a project I would like to go back and clean up the old versions and unused files. But this rarely happens in reality. It is always on to the next project ASAP. Then coming back to the mess is not fun. I think I need to keep the RAW or DNG, to same the photo shoot for other uses. The PSD to edit. then the final used format (assuming that step is needed).

I am tying to define what the best workflow is without realizing at the end, should-a, would-a, could-a.

Robert
"tacit" wrote in message
In article <edrv9e$>,
"Robert" wrote:

I am using PS-cs2 and I didn’t see the option for compression using PSD format. Maybe the fact that I cary a white cane has something to do with it. It appears that the compression is very little. I should do a comparison, not just the general impression. The image content dramaticly
affects file size, with compression. I will do that this weekend, and post.

There’s no option for compression on a PSD file; it’s always compressed. However, it uses a fast but simple compression algorithm that doesn’t offer very much savings to complex photographic images that have a lot of detail. It works best on large areas of the same color, so it excels on masks and the like.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
T
Tacit
Sep 11, 2006
In article ,
"decline" wrote:

If I am wanting to place a file in illustrator, and eventually take it to a print house. Should I keep it in PSD or flatten and take it to TIF?

Depends on what your print shop wants, and what version of Illustrator you use, and how good you are with dealing with transparency.

Modern versions of Illustrator offer full support for transparency and offer support for Photoshop .psd files, but in the hands of the wrong person, ,this can produce undesirable results in print. A good print shop can print an Illustrator file with transparency on press and get exactly what you want; a poor print shop, or a prepress person who does not understand how to flatten transparency on output, will not.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
R
Robert
Sep 12, 2006
If I am not talking about a particular project, that would have a particular print house, is it a bad idea to use PSD files for the standard? It might work fine in house where it is all adobe cs2 but when it goes out I need to make sure the printer can handle transparency of PSD.

Dose the advantages of all the other functionality of PSD outweigh the potential problem?

I am trying to define a reasonable workflow of file types. Without going through the full process a few times with different printers, it is hard trying to find where the should-a point is going to be. It is so good to get the recommendations from real world users.

Robert

"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"decline" wrote:

If I am wanting to place a file in illustrator, and eventually take it to a
print house. Should I keep it in PSD or flatten and take it to TIF?

Depends on what your print shop wants, and what version of Illustrator you use, and how good you are with dealing with transparency.
Modern versions of Illustrator offer full support for transparency and offer support for Photoshop .psd files, but in the hands of the wrong person, ,this can produce undesirable results in print. A good print shop can print an Illustrator file with transparency on press and get exactly what you want; a poor print shop, or a prepress person who does not understand how to flatten transparency on output, will not.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
K
KatWoman
Sep 23, 2006
"Robert" wrote in message
What is the best file type? It depends on what you want to do.
I don’t know what the limitations and advantages of the different types are. I understand a little. I just recently switched to CS2. I am now into using only Adobe’s programs for max compatibility. I am evaluating my work flow. And plan on making some changes. Some of below I know is true, some is obsolete, some I think is, and some is true with particular settings. Below is a list of what I consider the major file formats worth using.

JPG

lots of different settings and flavors. The big advantage is file size. It has a loss compression. What this means is each time you save the file, it looses a little. I assume that this dose not matter on saves within the editing session.( edit, save, edit, save, edit, close) I assume the only loss is happening on the last save, or close. How much loss, or errors introduced by the file format is dependent on the compression settings. Layers and masking is not an option. I think the file is limited to 24bit RGB. Web compatible.

PSD

No compression, a lot of editing function capable, such as layers, and masks. Not as compatible with others. Some editing packages can only open particular versions of this. For example if you created a PSD in PS CS2 someone else using Corel 11 could not open it. Capable of many different modes. At its extreme it is capable of 96bit RGB. Not directly web compatible

RAW

Very proprietary, for cameras. Most information from the camera. Very large file size. Must be adjusted to be used. IE white balance, and sharpening are needed. Not directly web compatible

Tiff

Great compatibility, I think it is compatible with layers.

Gif

Small, lossy, web compatible masks. Limited to 255 colors.

It is my opinion how best to use the above formats is:

Shoot JPG most of the time, for files that I don’t want to require the time to adjust.

For photos I want the best possible quality, use Raw. Then save as PSD keeping the un-flattened edits.

Save the edited JPGs as PSD or back as JPG depending on quality and future of the image.

I had not looked into digital negative format. I have not seen TGA formats in a while, and don’t know what is wrong or right with it. There are a lot of formats, available.

I look forward to seeing the comments, and recommendations.

any file that I have manipulated in layers I save as PSD all layers intact I cannot remember how many times I have had to go into old files pull out singular elements, rearrange layouts or otherwise re-edit. Most print shops will specify what they want.
If they don’t I send a flattened TIFF (often this needs to be changed to CMYK first)
I always include a small JPG of the file for clients that cannot open large TIFF files or cannot see PSD files.(without PS installed)

my workflow is:
JPG from camera (or scan from slide)
…..save as PSD
original on background layer as reference, changes on dupe layer above, artwork retouch, layer adjusting, all intact and editable …..flatten and save as TIFF (easily shared by anyone opens in many programs)
also useful for use with Windows programs like picture fax viewer,Publisher and Word.
…..a small jpg copy of the tiff for preview or net sharing and emailing (a lot of people do not understand how to open and save in another format and they need this)

on their CD I include the files in the 3 formats
with a brief CD-readme file explaining to use the larger TIFF files for print, the small jpg for internet or email and for the print shop they have the layered PSD if they need to go in and change anything like adjustment levels, move type etc.

I also put all the relevant copyright info in that readme.txt and a release stating who can use the images and for what purpose (good labs will not print

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections