PS external editor - TIFF compression

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yzerguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yzerguy

Guest
I realize we've touched on this already here:

http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=1123

Considered replying to that thread (again) but recently I've been advised (encouraged?) to start new threads instead of adding to old ones.

I've already decided on using TIFF to send photos back/forth between LR & PS for edits. I got curious about compression vs. no compression with TIFF files and tried for myself.

Finished file sizes are a bit smaller (after basic PS3 edits) with compressed vs. no compression. That said all I have access to at this point is .zip (new to Mac).

I wasn't able to to replicate the file size growth in compressed files that rpcannon noted in post #5 in the thread link above -- albeit that was LZW.

As expected, file transfer/save times are faster without compression, but saving a few MBs here and there adds up over time.

Out of curiosity, wondering if anyone has any feedback on any potential advantages and/or disadvantages of using compressed TIFF vs. no compression when sending RAW files to PS from LR for edits, other than the mentioned time vs. HD space trade-off mentioned above? I couldn't see any, wondering if anyone else has.

Comparative sizes of same file with: RAW, no compression (...-edit.tif) and compression (...edit-2.tif):
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sort by date Sort by votes
When using Tiffs I always save with LZW compression as it is a lossless compression. With LR I hardly send anything to PS now so when I do it is either tiff or psd.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you are using 8 bit files then you will see a small file size reduction with zip or lzw compression. If you are using 16 bit files then there will be no reduction and the files may actually get larger.

Also, how much compression you will see depends on the image. A noisy image with lots of detail won't compress as much as something like a picture shot at a low iso on a solid background.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rcannonp;1'258 said:
If you are using 8 bit files then you will see a small file size reduction with zip or lzw compression. If you are using 16 bit files then there will be no reduction and the files may actually get larger.

Also, how much compression you will see depends on the image. A noisy image with lots of detail won't compress as much as something like a picture shot at a low iso on a solid background.
Click to expand...

I'm using 16 bit files... even so the file size I used as an example above did decrease a bit with compression, the image is ISO 5'' (auto ISO) but it's a head shot with a lot of white walls in the back ground, could explain it.

It sounds like (from lack of comments) that other than file size vs. processing time constraints, that not many have noticed a tangible difference in IQ when working with compressed or non-compressed TIFFs in either LR or PS? Still kinda new, so I can't say I've had much time to experiment with this stuff.

Sean
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sean, there should be no image quality difference -- it's lossless compression. It's purely a tradeoff between storage space and time (and the balance point will vary depending on your system).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Mark, much appreciated. My system isn't a speed machine but it's not dead slow either. At this point I find myself jumping to PS quite a bit, so I'm still on the fence... lots of jumps makes less time (no compression) favorable... that said, media is cheap but not unlimited. I'll get this work-flow tweaked eventually!

Cheers, Sean
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top