# File saving for the future, PSD or TIFF?



## Jad (May 18, 2013)

Now that Adobe has come out with Creative Cloud as the only option to use PS in the future, I am starting to wonder if I should start saving my new files as unflatten TIFF and not as PSD files. It is a new concern seeing a PSD file is strictly a formatted to work on Adobe products. I currently use CS5 and it is doubtful I will subscribe to new C.C. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Light Guru (May 18, 2013)

Jad said:


> PSD file is strictly a formatted to work on Adobe products.



Umm where did you hear that. Lots of other programs can read PSD files. Some even let you save as a PSD file.


----------



## Derrel (May 18, 2013)

Adobe's new Creative Extortion model has caused their customers to worry about things like file type "lock-in", and about the very ability to open and access their files...I have not yet heard about any proprietary .PSD files....but then again...a .PSD is a a "Photoshop Document" file type, and there have been multiple permutations of that file type. Adobe could pull a fast one at any time--they have just proven that to the world this month.

To somebody who has not been involved in digital imaging or computing for very long, the idea of dead file formats and dead-end software and so on might not seem like a real issue...but the past is littered with the bones of dead formats and file types and dead-end software...so, it now makes more sense than it has in a long time to start worrying about being "locked-in" and/or "locked out" of ones own files, by tying them to a specific software manufacturer's whims and aspirations of easy money.

Thom Hogan's latest column deals with this same exact issue...re-evaluating one's relationship with Adobe and its software, as well as the history of dead-end file formats and software.


----------



## OLaA (May 18, 2013)

You will still be able to access your current software... so if the issue ever came up you could open with your current PS edition and re-save the file.  I don't think there is any real reason to worry..

Also for users like myself that stay current with Adobe releases anyway it actually ends up being cheaper.


----------



## Jad (May 18, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Jad said:
> 
> 
> > PSD file is strictly a formatted to work on Adobe products.
> ...


I have to think that PSD is an Adobe file type and that would make it their proprietary property to change and adapt with their future software. My current CS5 will not be worth much in five years and I don't plan on paying a monthly subscription to Adobe for the rest of my life. I save all of my PSD files unflatten so I can edit them in the future. You say there are numerous programs that can read PSD but can they edit the file?


----------



## OLaA (May 18, 2013)

GIMP is a free program that can open and edit PSD files.  There are some limitations depending on what was done to certain layers.  I find that it's more of an issue with graphic design work than photos though (layer effects etc).


----------



## Derrel (May 18, 2013)

Check out Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site for the conclkusion of this, as well as more, stories on the upcoming "Creative Cloud" model Adobe is trying to ram up users' behinds...

"_*The Future's So Dim I Have to Take Off My Shades*__May 13, 2013 (commentary)--_One problem for Adobe is that the more people think deeply about the change to the Creative Suite with the (faux) cloud offering, the more they discover some substantive underlying issues.

Let's just say for a moment that I'm at a University and teaching future media students (this isn't a moot point for me, as I've been approached several times to be an adjunct professor lately). What software do you teach and train students on?

The file lock-in potential on products such as Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere, and After Effects now becomes a tangible issue in answering that question. You'd essentially be committing your students to a life of having to pay software fees to access their work. Not a good thing, and not really a decision you can morally justify easily. You _do_ want to train students in products they're likely to encounter in the field, but you_ don't_ want to promote lock-in to any particular brand, let alone suggest that, once trained, you'll have to pay a monthly tithe to continue to use those skills. That's especially true if there are alternatives."  ----*end quoted passage from THom Hogan's May 13 comments.*


----------



## OLaA (May 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Check out Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site for the conclkusion of this, as well as more, stories on the upcoming "Creative Cloud" model Adobe is trying to ram up users' behinds...
> 
> "_*The Future's So Dim I Have to Take Off My Shades*__May 13, 2013 (commentary)--_One problem for Adobe is that the more people think deeply about the change to the Creative Suite with the (faux) cloud offering, the more they discover some substantive underlying issues.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to start a debate with you Derrel as there is an argument to be made.  I just don't see it as a big deal.  People get updates to frequently used software earlier.  For serious users the package turns out to be cheaper.  Presumably if their in school learning to use these type of tools they're looking to make a occupation out of it which means two things.  

A. They get employed and their employer enlists team services where it is free for them to use.  

B. They start their own business and have the sense to build it in to their cost into their cost of doing business, as everyone SHOULD be doing already.


----------



## Jad (May 18, 2013)

OLaA said:


> GIMP is a free program that can open and edit PSD files.  There are some limitations depending on what was done to certain layers.  I find that it's more of an issue with graphic design work than photos though (layer effects etc).


Thanks, I will certainly check it out, but it may not be a powerful editing software that I enjoyed with PS.


----------



## Derrel (May 18, 2013)

Category:Computer file formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History has a little bit to say about companies and file formats...

Allowing adobe to hold you hostage for decades on end is a real potential issue that Thom Hogan has been writing about now for a week or so.

I'd look up some of the stuff from the distant past, but my old Amiga with the 8-inch floppy drive is not working quite right today...

8-inch-floppy-disks.jpg


----------



## OLaA (May 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Category:Computer file formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> History has a little bit to say about companies and file formats...
> 
> ...



Ill look into the links you shared. Interesting topic regardless.


----------



## SCraig (May 18, 2013)

OLaA said:


> You will still be able to access your current software... so if the issue ever came up you could open with your current PS edition and re-save the file.  I don't think there is any real reason to worry..



There are no guarantees of that either.  If you are using Windows the past is also littered with software that will no longer run on the current Windows platform.  How long will it be before the OS has changed enough that CS5 will no longer run?  One year?  Five years?  Who is to say.

For that matter how long will it be until the media you have stored them on is no longer readable?  CD and DVD formats are subject to change over time.  Tape formats are constantly changing.  Hard drive interfaces make changes over time as well.  I have hundreds of old 3-1/2" and 5-1/4" diskettes in my closet with nothing at all to read them with.  I have a 3-1/2" diskette drive, however my current computer doesn't even have an IDE connection on the motherboard, all of them are SATA-3 now.

At work I have dozens of old projects archived on DVD.  At some point in the future, should we ever have to revive one of them, it's entirely possible we'll have to find an old computer with an antique DVD drive to be able to read them.  When I left a company about 20 years ago I left them with hundreds of archived projects on 8mm tape cartridges and 9-track tapes.  Both of those formats tended to die a few years later so I have no clue what they did.  If they were smart someone moved them to a format they could use but then they were never accused of forward thinking either.

The bottom line is that for many people it truly IS, or may become, a valid problem with no realistic answer.  We can't predict the future now any more than we could 10 or 20 years ago.


----------



## OLaA (May 18, 2013)

SCraig said:


> OLaA said:
> 
> 
> > You will still be able to access your current software... so if the issue ever came up you could open with your current PS edition and re-save the file.  I don't think there is any real reason to worry..
> ...



My argument is not that it may or may not become a problem.  I was stating that there's no reason to rush out and convert everything right away.  It's true if they stop supporting older releases of adobe it may not be supported on future OS builds.  But that is something YOU as a user have to choose to do.  Before you update your OS you can make sure if your software will be compatible.  There is no expiration date on your current software other than your own need to move on.  If that time every comes you are free to open your files with current software and export as you see fit.  At the end of the day PSD files are a propitiatory software.  Adobe has made the change so you're either with it, or you are not.  If not there are other programs to be had, and some even being free.  If you totally can't live without adobe in your work flow then pay for it, or continue to use the build that you have now.   

To clarify I'm not saying what Adobe is doing is right or wrong.  In my specific case it actually benefits me, but that doesn't mean that I can't see it from other peoples perspectives.  What I am trying to say is that the change has been made so it is what it is.  But there is no reason to rush out to convert files or panic.


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

Use DNG....

Now argue on...


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

PS>  I work in a business concerned with long period of archiving files.   You'd be sorely mistaken if you assume that software updates from a proprietary format will always be around to recover your data.


----------



## 480sparky (May 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> Use DNG....
> 
> Now argue on...



No more of a guarantee than any other format.


----------



## SCraig (May 18, 2013)

OLaA said:


> My argument is not that it may or may not become a problem.  I was stating that there's no reason to rush out and convert everything right away.  It's true if they stop supporting older releases of adobe it may not be supported on future OS builds.  But that is something YOU as a user have to choose to do.  Before you update your OS you can make sure if your software will be compatible.  There is no expiration date on your current software other than your own need to move on.  If that time every comes you are free to open your files with current software and export as you see fit.  At the end of the day PSD files are a propitiatory software.  Adobe has made the change so you're either with it, or you are not.  If not there are other programs to be had, and some even being free.  If you totally can't live without adobe in your work flow then pay for it, or continue to use the build that you have now.
> 
> To clarify I'm not saying what Adobe is doing is right or wrong.  In my specific case it actually benefits me, but that doesn't mean that I can't see it from other peoples perspectives.  What I am trying to say is that the change has been made so it is what it is.  But there is no reason to rush out to convert files or panic.



I agree with that.  Changes do take time and seldom does one occur with no advance warning.  It can become a monumental task to make the switch when it becomes necessary, but the opportunity is normally there.


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

480sparky said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Use DNG....
> ...



You don't know what you are talking about.... move on.  

We've been down this path before and there is no need to rehash...  Your stance is based on the assumptions that reverse engineering is easy and cost free.  Even as much as indicating that hardware reverse engineering is easier than software.  Its a debate stance from the eyes of a novice who never had to do it... or even build an understanding of such an undertaking.


http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/313941-dng-raw-2.html


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

Oh yes... if I were to choose between PSD and TIFF.   I think I would choose TIFF.

Either way... neither will "avoid" Adobe... TIFF spec is copyrighted and owned by Adobe.


----------



## 480sparky (May 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.... move on.
> 
> We've been down this path before and there is no need to rehash...  Your stance is based on the assumptions that reverse engineering is easy and cost free.  Even as much as indicating that hardware reverse engineering is easier than software.  Its a debate stance from the eyes of a novice who never had to do it.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/313941-dng-raw-2.html



Try again. 

You can thump your chest as much as you want and claim intellectual superiority until Armagedon. That still does not change the _fact_ that there is *no guarantee* that any format and software will be viable any time in the future. This includes your precious .DNG.


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

Sheesh.. read the thread... I am repeating myself to a deaf person.   I am not guaranteeing anything..  never said that.      We already discussed this and you keep repeating yourself regardless.  Nothing is guaranteed.   Its all about bettering the chances of recovery.  I can translate data from one format to another rather easily given properly documented format... not so if reverse engineering is required.   That's all I am saying and you keep repeating yourself as if that better's your chances of being correct.

With properly documentation of an open format, the concern for longevity is shifted to the media on which it data is stored... that's what archival people should be worried about.  The media and the hardware to read it is far more difficult of a solution.

Its not intellectual superiority that I am showing you.. its simply that I am more familiar and closer to the wide problem of data archival and recovery than you are but you still consider yourself the arm-chair expert.

You still have no clue...


----------



## Light Guru (May 18, 2013)

Jad said:


> I have to think that PSD is an Adobe file type and that would make it their proprietary property to change and adapt with their future software.



Cop amines license or even let others use file types or other things they date all the time. 

Photoshop did not become the predominant image editing software because they kept things proprietary they did it by making the best imaging editing software.  



Jad said:


> You say there are numerous programs that can read PSD but can they edit the file?



Yes they can some better then others.  But none of them are as good as photoshop. 

I don't understand why people are so upset. $20 a month is cheep. That's $5 a week. Think about all the other things you constantly pay much more every month for then what photoshop will cost you. Electricity for the house, Internet, cable TV, gas for the car, cell phone. If $5 a week for photoshop is going to be that big a issue on your wallet you could save a lot more by shutting off your electricity, Internet, cable and riding a bike everywhere.


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Jad said:
> 
> 
> > You say there are numerous programs that can read PSD but can they edit the file?
> ...



This is a very important point that many may not realize in detail.   None of the other photo packages are as good as photoshop with PSD support because none of them have completely reversed engineered the PSD file format.   Many of them are borrowing from projects such as GIMP (source available) who has reversed engineered some degree of PSD support.  Searching google will show that there are many attempts by various parties to support the PSD closed and proprietary format with varying levels of success.  Here is one:

Yet Another PSD Parser - CodeProject

Snippet is from the author:

"Reverse engineering is a tedious process (thus slow), and with the project where I needed the parser gone by, I didn't put much time on it.
....
With this project, I think I've managed to create a decent architecture, but there's still work to be done before it has a 100% compatibility with PSD files."

In my previous post, I chose DNG first but between PSD and TIFF... I chose TIFF.   Although still owned by the same company, Adobe, I chose it because of the specifications are widely published and downloadable;

http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/tiff/TIFF6.pdf

Its also a format that has a very long history of which it has survived the test of time.  That 100+ page spec serves as the "Rosetta Stone" for anyone to interpret the TIFF 6 format.  This is one reason why TIFF is so widely and very well supported by various imaging packages.  Without that document, it could take years and years to reverse engineer without any prior knowledge of what the stream of bits represents.  Years and years that so very few are willing to invest to solve just one format.. more importantly... one single VERSION of that format.


----------



## SCraig (May 18, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> I don't understand why people are so upset. $20 a month is cheep. That's $5 a week. Think about all the other things you constantly pay much more every month for then what photoshop will cost you. Electricity for the house, Internet, cable TV, gas for the car, cell phone. If $5 a week for photoshop is going to be that big a issue on your wallet you could save a lot more by shutting off your electricity, Internet, cable and riding a bike everywhere.


Would you say the same thing if it were Nikon or Canon?  If one of them announced that they would no longer "Sell" cameras and would only lease you usage rights to the camera firmware for a monthly fee would you still be so agreeable?  After all it's only a few dollars a month so what's the difference?


----------



## Light Guru (May 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Jad said:
> ...



No it's not that. Other software can use the psd file format just as good as adobe. The point i was trying to make is that nobody has come close in making a image editor program that is as good as photoshop.


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

Totally agree with you... PS is the best...

BUT

I still find complaints that certain features of PSD are still missing in these applications.  GIMP for example.

"PSD
PSD is Adobe Photoshop's native file format, and it is therefore comparable to XCF in complexity. GIMP's ability to handle PSD files is sophisticated but limited: some features of PSD files are not loaded, and only older versions of PSD are supported. Unfortunately, Adobe has now made the Photoshop Software Development Kit &#8212; which includes their file format specifications &#8212; proprietary, and only available to a limited set of developers approved by Adobe. This does not include the GIMP development team, and the lack of information makes it very difficult to maintain up-to-date support for PSD files."

As far as I know, no one has claimed 100% compatibility with PSD file format which contributes to why it works best with just Photoshop.


----------



## Jad (May 18, 2013)

Film is the best way to store an image if stored in an archival method. It is easy to retrieve and locate an image in a negative folder. It will be interesting to see how digital image files make out in the future. I think many will be lost on old hard drives and other will be files that no longer will open with the current software. We are headed for a train wreck. The digital camera makers should have agreed upon a file format that would have been universal for all brands at the start of the digital era. That what Adobe has done with DNG but we are back to Adobe again.


----------



## Buckster (May 18, 2013)

Proliferation of Cloud resources make future retrieval a non-issue.  It simply won't matter if you have a machine that can read a particular kind of hard media like a disk.


----------



## usayit (May 18, 2013)

Interesting... The cloud is were the next products we are working on are heading.   But not for long term archival solutions.   At first we were aiming to backup "TO" the cloud as a primary solution but that only works for short term, tier one storage.  Corporates usually use a tiered approach to data storage/protection and place data on a "lifecycle"... short term storage is fast and easy to retrieve.  Its expensive so the data is migrated to cheaper and cheaper storage.   Cheaper storage could be tape that takes time to locate and restore.  On top of that, there are two separate problems here: High availability and Data Protection/archival.  People mixup the two but they are completely different problems with different solutions.  

Cloud is were resources (communication/network, processing, storage) are distributed, easily accessible, and organized as utilities.   None of these inherently translate to a good archiving strategy.   IT doesn't solve the issues inherent with hardware obsolescence nor does it solve the issue with proprietary formats.  It simply "moves" it and makes the data easily accessible in the short term.   The obvious question that comes up... WHO's Protecting The Cloud?

Behind every cloud is usually a backup and archival solution that is rooted in the same technologies and techniques that have existed prior to vCloud and openStack.  As such we focus on backup solutions OF THE CLOUD as well as a portfolio of products that integrate/manage the cloud.

All those back up cloud strategies for personal data?  What they are selling is not long term archival.. its a combination of short term storage, paired with cloud's ability to provide easy storage access, and combined with the cloud's support for utility services/pricing.  When you start talk in terms of "quick" access of short term storage, what they are actually solving is the "High availability" of data.  Easily and quickly accessing a duplicate copy of your data.   The whole "archival" story is 100% marketing and "backup" is simply by way of duplicating your data outside your computer.

The archival problem is not defined over a few years.... its a problem that defined over several decades.   Who's paying cloud backup.... is the cloud viable that long... who's backing it up... who is migrating data to safer formats?


----------



## Jad (May 19, 2013)

usayit said:


> Interesting... The cloud is were the next products we are working on are heading.   But not for long term archival solutions.   At first we were aiming to backup "TO" the cloud as a primary solution but that only works for short term, tier one storage.  Corporates usually use a tiered approach to data storage/protection and place data on a "lifecycle"... short term storage is fast and easy to retrieve.  Its expensive so the data is migrated to cheaper and cheaper storage.   Cheaper storage could be tape that takes time to locate and restore.  On top of that, there are two separate problems here: High availability and Data Protection/archival.  People mixup the two but they are completely different problems with different solutions.
> 
> Cloud is were resources (communication/network, processing, storage) are distributed, easily accessible, and organized as utilities.   None of these inherently translate to a good archiving strategy.   IT doesn't solve the issues inherent with hardware obsolescence nor does it solve the issue with proprietary formats.  It simply "moves" it and makes the data easily accessible in the short term.   The obvious question that comes up... WHO's Protecting The Cloud?
> 
> ...


Perfectly stated. There will be no one common area for long term storage of the images currently being created. Some will make the transition from one format to another, while others will be lost in outdated software and equipment. With the magnitude of new images being created today with digital photography maybe that won't be a bad thing.


----------



## Buckster (May 19, 2013)

I said future retrieval, not future compatibility.

In 32 years of owning and using computers, I've gone through a lot of different kinds of media, much of it now long obsolete.  Cassette tapes, 8" floppies, 5.25" floppies, 3.5" floppies, zip drives, tape drives, a few different kinds of hard drives, CDs, DVDs, USB thumb drives, various memory cards; SD, micro SD, Sony mem sticks, CF, etc.  I've had each of them fail, crash, dump, death-click, etc., at some point or other.

And yet, I still have my very first, very oldest image files that go back some 25 years.

I use a lot of redundant media, multiple redundant hard drives, DVDs, CDs, and transfer to new media as it becomes available.  In addition, I'm not just backing up to one additional cloud resource, but a couple of them, plus a remote enterprise server, plus another remote machine I own at a whole different physical location.

I'm feeling pretty confident that I'm going to continue to have access to my digital files until electricity-powered devices suddenly stop working permanently, or until I die, whichever comes first.


----------



## usayit (May 19, 2013)

My response was also related to future retrieval as well.

The cloud isn't some magic media that's unlimited and infallible.  Implementing the cloud doesn't magically make these issues go away as already explained in my prev post.  The sheer fact that you have to manage you own redundancy in media in addition to cloud is a clear indication that future retrieval is not resolved by solely just a cloud solution.   If you were to omit you cloud backup and simply off site the duplicate media, you are essentially performing the same exact task.   In fact its better.   First its cheaper than cloud backup (but at the expense that its not as quick to access the data).  Second, there is an inherent risk of going through a business agreement with anyone... pushing off the responsibility to someone else.  Just as companies have gone bankrupt and disappeared with customers lining up for litigation for lost services/products but never seeing any resolution (largest investors always get to the assets first), these clouds could do exactly the same thing.  Remember businesses are entities are limitd liability... ultimately their assets.  If you loose data retrieval from the cloud through either loss or business failure, good luck.. you are essentially on your own.

A previous company that I work for that actually provides DR services has pages and pages of legal jargon to avoid complete liability.   Its essentially onus on the client (not the service) to prove DR and business continuity.  This is why the Feds that require this by law inspect the process via our clients are not necessarily focused on our processes.

DVDs and CDs have life spans as well.   There are already indication that early copies of DVD-Rs and CD-Rs are failing.  I have a burn date on all my media (in addition to other copies) and I plan on refreshing them.

As I mentioned in the past here on the TPF.... the bigger challenge is solving the media and hardware.  Software is relatively easier to solve... beginning with documentation/spec.


----------



## Kolia (May 19, 2013)

We don't have to look at the distant past or a hypothetical future to realize to potential issues.

Less than two years ago, LightRoom 4 changed the way the Develop tools work.  Any RAW files previously treated with LR3 had to be converted to the latest version to be worked on.  In the process, the resulting image was changed slightly.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2013)

Old people like the old things they grow up with. I will probably be scared of the hologram storage my grand kids use.

Just don't confuse familiarity with superiority.


----------



## Buckster (May 19, 2013)

Maybe ignorance is bliss, but after 32 years of hearing this spiel from the "YOUR DATA'S GONNA DIE!!!" (for all the aforementioned reasons) doomsayers, and still I have my files despite the obvious impossibility of such a thing, I'm just not terribly worried about it.  If it all dies and becomes irretrievable and unusable before I kick the bucket, bummer I guess.

Unless every single backup resource fails simultaneously so that there's absolutely no place at all for me to recover from, it all sounds like Chicken Little panic to me.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2013)

The bigger question is will the images from today even be worth viewing in 10-20 years from now? Even 10 years ago digital images were terrible compared to now.


----------



## usayit (May 20, 2013)

Buckster,  Don't get me wrong.. what you are doing to protect your data is the correct process. Its kinda like insurance, you don't know until you need it.  I'd say you are the minority.. most people do not back up at all and somehow are surprised when things go wrong.  Most of this line of responses were stemming from the comment about cloud being a solution which it is not.

I was on a recover team that recovered and hosted for well over a year a few clients that lost whole infrastructures that were located in the World Trade Center.   Believe me.   If we had failed to recover and/or our banking clients failed to have a proven strategy, it would be all over the news.  The fact that to the wide public doesn't really know about the problems with archiving data is A GOOD thing.  There are quite a few isolated cases of dataloss in the industry, this is why federal regulations are in place for financials.


----------



## usayit (May 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> The bigger question is will the images from today even be worth viewing in 10-20 years from now? Even 10 years ago digital images were terrible compared to now.



"Worth" needs to be quantified.... and not necessarily defined in terms of quality/content.   One of the most valuable photographs in the world is an image that is barely recognizable.


----------



## runnah (May 20, 2013)

usayit said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger question is will the images from today even be worth viewing in 10-20 years from now? Even 10 years ago digital images were terrible compared to now.
> ...



Sentimental and historical significance aside, looking back all of the "art" photos I took with my older digital cameras are of such bad quality I have no use for them.


----------

