File Size of TIFF vs PSD etc.

[NorthernFocus]

For years I used Nikon software for RAW conversion and PS Elements as my primary editor. A long time ago I did some tests and satisfied myself that saving in PSD format resulted in smaller file sizes than TIFF. So I've been using PSD as my preferred format for several years. A couple of years ago when I started using LR for conversion and ON1 as editor, I simply continued generating PSD files. One exception is when merging files into panos. Until recently I used Hugin and generated TIFF files. Now the latest version of LR has improved as a merging tool so I've been using it for simplicity sake, It generates DNG files.

So... today I was doing some work cleaning up the HD on my computer and noticed PSD files substantially larger than TIFF files of the same pano image. So I ran a little test. Using LR I exported various formats from the same NEF file that was shot with a D810. Here are the results:

NEF(original): 39MB
DNG: 37MB
TIFF: 212 MB
PSD: 212 MB

Then I opened the TIFF and PSD in ON1 and saved them again without making any edits. The file sizes changed as follow:

TIFF: 282MB
PSD: 565MB

These file sizes are insane! Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone else has done any work on comparing file sizes and if so what did you come up with?

[PhilT]

I noticed this when my HD happens to be full...and I can't save more file . All the pictures (originally around 20 MB-Nikon D7100) after editing in On1 and saving in PSD "smart editing" were huge >200 up to 500 MB. The same (a bit less) if saving in TIFF. Since I don't use more the "smart PSD" editing.
PhilT

[george013]

For years I used Nikon software for RAW conversion and PS Elements as my primary editor. A long time ago I did some tests and satisfied myself that saving in PSD format resulted in smaller file sizes than TIFF. So I've been using PSD as my preferred format for several years. A couple of years ago when I started using LR for conversion and ON1 as editor, I simply continued generating PSD files. One exception is when merging files into panos. Until recently I used Hugin and generated TIFF files. Now the latest version of LR has improved as a merging tool so I've been using it for simplicity sake, It generates DNG files.

So... today I was doing some work cleaning up the HD on my computer and noticed PSD files substantially larger than TIFF files of the same pano image. So I ran a little test. Using LR I exported various formats from the same NEF file that was shot with a D810. Here are the results:

NEF(original): 39MB
DNG: 37MB
TIFF: 212 MB
PSD: 212 MB

Then I opened the TIFF and PSD in ON1 and saved them again without making any edits. The file sizes changed as follow:

TIFF: 282MB
PSD: 565MB

These file sizes are insane! Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone else has done any work on comparing file sizes and if so what did you come up with?

I can't say about the PSD, but TIFF is a diskfile that stores the RGB-rasterfile as it is.
So if your camera has a resulution of 7360x4912 pixels, the mininmum amount used by the TIFF is 7360x4912x3x2=216913920 byte, 16bit colordepth and uncompressed. Add some overhead to it.

[Shadowman]

Did any of the saves have layers that were applied during the edits? I know LR doesn't have layers but if you did any external editing and brought back into LR that might account for the additional data.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the replies, folks.

George, I forgot about the x2 for 16bit files when calculating the size of TIFFs. Yes then the math works out pretty close.

John, no layers were saved with any of the files. ON1 obviously saved a lot of additional data. I also did a test saving what they refer to as a "smart" copy. It was 50 percent larger yet at about 800MB.

It also now occurs to me that in my prior experience using PSE I was editing 8-bit files and most often saving them with multiple layers intact rather than flattening them prior to saving. Presumably the PSD format is more efficient than TIFF when multiple layers are saved which would account for the smaller PSD files that I saw then.

[NorthernFocus]

Continuing to clean up my files and found a new winner for the largest file size. Pano PSD file generated from four D7200 NEFs and processed in ON1. NOT saved as a "smart" file. Calculated theoretical 16bit TIFF file size is 383MB. Actual PSD file size was a whopping 1.4GB

[xpatUSA]

An interesting thread for one who shoots currently with a 3.4MP Sigma and views on a 2.3MP monitor!

By way of contrast to those huge numbers quoted so far:

X3F raw: 5.119 MB (16-bit lossless compressed)
TIFF-8bit: 10.106 MB
TIFF-16bit: 20.182 MB
PNG (max comp): 6.383 MB
DNG (linear): 20.848 MB

Sorry, no PSD file possible

[Manfred M]

Dan - I wonder if this issue has something to do with the way Lightroom does panos. Generally I find that psd files tend to be smaller than tiff files.

I get absolutely huge files when I use Photoshop to create panos as the software only uses a portion of each file in the pano, but all of the data has to be stored. In Photoshop, I will flatten the file when the creation process is complete and the file size comes right down. That gets ride of all that overhead from the parts of the files that do not end up in the final pano.

I don't know what is happening in LR (or ACR) when panos are generated. I wonder if there is some overhead related to storing the unused portion of each shot that you are seeing and the TIFF is smaller because this additional data is thrown away. As these pieces of software do not support layers, the data from each component file that makes up the pano has to be stored somewhere, and that could be embedded in the dng file. Just a guess, but intuitively that is the only thing I can think of that would end up creating the large files that you are getting.

[george013]

If somebody is interested http://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/pho..._pgfId-1036097

From what I know a tiff is basic a bitmap file, storing the rgb raster image in a big array. And additional information and eventual a jpg.

Dan,
The psd file is about 4 times a tiff, 4 layers. You could try to make a pano in the same way with 2 layers and see the differenece. I don't know if the psd includes a resulting image or only the commands to create one, like in a nef.

George

[John 2]

Continuing to clean up my files and found a new winner for the largest file size. Pano PSD file generated from four D7200 NEFs and processed in ON1. NOT saved as a "smart" file. Calculated theoretical 16bit TIFF file size is 383MB. Actual PSD file size was a whopping 1.4GB

I've had the same experience Dan. Generally, PSD files seem to be larger than TIFF comparing like for like and I avoid them. Some plugins don't like them either. However, I only use CS6 and can't speak for other software.

[John 2]

...............however whilst idly googling the subject, I came across this. It's a bit of a read but it has some answers.

www.digitaldog.net/files/TiffvsPSD.pdf

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for all of the input, folks. To be clear, I don't us PS. Any files I'm creating are generated either by LR or ON1. But collectively in these posts and the attached articles, all of the answers are contained. The seemingly inconsistent sizes in files are dependent on how/in which software the files are generated and saved. LR creates DNG files when used to stitch panos. The files are pretty large. Manfred, I think you're on to the reason for that in that the DNG contains all of the info from the multiple files being stitched together, not only the (apparent)resulting image.

I have no idea what/how ON1 is saving. Unlike PS when saving it does not open a menu offering multiple choices for how you want to save the image. It's a one click and done process. Though I use it via the plug-in so it may be different in the stand alone version.

Anyhow.... it's all rather confusing. I'll do a bit more testing and if I come up with any repeatable results will report back.

[george013]

Thanks for all of the input, folks. To be clear, I don't us PS. Any files I'm creating are generated either by LR or ON1. But collectively in these posts and the attached articles, all of the answers are contained. The seemingly inconsistent sizes in files are dependent on how/in which software the files are generated and saved. LR creates DNG files when used to stitch panos. The files are pretty large. Manfred, I think you're on to the reason for that in that the DNG contains all of the info from the multiple files being stitched together, not only the (apparent)resulting image.

I have no idea what/how ON1 is saving. Unlike PS when saving it does not open a menu offering multiple choices for how you want to save the image. It's a one click and done process. Though I use it via the plug-in so it may be different in the stand alone version.

Anyhow.... it's all rather confusing. I'll do a bit more testing and if I come up with any repeatable results will report back.

Did you try to create your pano again but with less photo's as I suggested? So with 2 or 3 photo's.
From the link I gave you,Layer and Mask section,

The fourth section of a Photoshop file contains information about layers and masks. This section of the document describes the formats of layer and mask records.

The complete merged image data is not stored here. The complete merged/composite image resides in the last section of the file. See See Image Data Section. If maximize compatibility is unchecked then the merged/composite is not created and the layer data must be read to reproduce the final image.

George

[NorthernFocus]

...The psd file is about 4 times a tiff, 4 layers. You could try to make a pano in the same way with 2 layers and see the differenece...

If I understand what you are saying is that the stitching process results in a layered image file with one layer for each image used to create the pano. Is that correct?

...Did you try to create your pano again but with less photo's as I suggested? So with 2 or 3 photo's.
...

Yes, I have noted that panos created from less files are more or less proportionally smaller. But if I'm understanding you the difference is more than proportional. Each layer is the size of the entire resultant pano so that the sum of the whole is much larger than the sum of the individual files.

This is all very informative. Now the trick is to figure out how to truly flatten the images to get rid of the multiple layers. This was self evident when I used PSE to create panos. The layers and masking were visible and could be flattened into a single layer. Within the software that I'm currently using this can't be seen. Will have to do some additional testing with saves and exports to figure out a workaround.

[george013]

If I understand what you are saying is that the stitching process results in a layered image file with one layer for each image used to create the pano. Is that correct?


Yes, I have noted that panos created from less files are more or less proportionally smaller. But if I'm understanding you the difference is more than proportional. Each layer is the size of the entire resultant pano so that the sum of the whole is much larger than the sum of the individual files.

This is all very informative. Now the trick is to figure out how to truly flatten the images to get rid of the multiple layers. This was self evident when I used PSE to create panos. The layers and masking were visible and could be flattened into a single layer. Within the software that I'm currently using this can't be seen. Will have to do some additional testing with saves and exports to figure out a workaround.

Don't forget a psd file is not an image file. It's a file that saves the status quo of an editing with the used layers and eventual a resulted image. So in your pano the psd contained 4 layers. Looking at the size of the file the resulted image was not included.
If you want to get rid of the layers, just export the image as jpg,tiff or what imagefile format you want. You only need the psd if you want to work further on that image, continuing from where you stopped.

I don't use psd or any editor that makes use of it. I'm just interested in the use of the files. That's what I can make of it.

From my former post

The complete merged image data is not stored here. The complete merged/composite image resides in the last section of the file. See See Image Data Section. If maximize compatibility is unchecked then the merged/composite is not created and the layer data must be read to reproduce the final image.

It's not a final image yet.

George

[NorthernFocus]

I've been working on cleaning up my files and am freeing up significant HD space simply by converting files from psd to tiff. This step is a no brainer because I rarely save layers when editing. Huge savings to be had if I convert to jpeg but that requires a bit more decision making on each file. One example of how much difference in tiff vs psd: 53 files converted collective file size is 3.6GB vs 12.4GB. I use On1 to supplement LR and suspect it is NOT flattening psd files even when layers are not displayed in the editor. Although when opened in PSE layers do not show either. So per prior posts by others must be inherent to psd format.

[revi]

If there's no particular reason why you need TIFF format, you could try PNG (lossless compression). My experience is that that TIFF sizes are 2-3x the corresponding PNG size.
Do keep in mind that PNG is a single layer format. It can preserve transparency, though.

[Donald]

If there's no particular reason why you need TIFF format,

If you use Silver Efex Pro or Colour Efex Pro as a Smart Filter with any of the Adobe products (Elements ..... etc), then saving the resultant file as a TIFF ensures you can go back to the file at any time and edit the Smart filter. This is not possible when your file is saved as a PNG or JPEG, or any other format, as the Smart filter is then embedded as part of the final file.

[Brev00]

I do not save files to PSD, just jpeg and tiff. Since moving to a D7100 with much larger tiff files, I downsize those files to the same size as my earlier D90 @65MB. That is plenty of information saved for me going forward with my jpeg's of varying sizes but averaging about 5-6 mb for easy use in average printing needs and internet sharing. The 65mb tiffs are plenty big for any future printing needs and if I want to get full quality, I still have my raws. I do not save my tiffs or my raws on my hard drive. As soon as I collect a reasonable quantity I export them to a dedicated external hard drive or two saving only the raw thumbnails. I only save to psd if I have to stop my processing at an early stage (before I am ready to export as a jpg) so I can pick up exactly where I left off. Then, I delete it.