 Teresa H. Hunt |
PSD files I just had my computer rebuilt. Now for some reason when I use lightroom to edit photos, then go to photoshop through lightroom, photoshop saves the files as a tif instead of a psd. Does anyone know why? Or how to get photoshop to save as a psd when using lightroom? And whats the difference between a tif and psd? Thanks :)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hi Teresa, Unless you are working on the image and have created layers and are saving the image with those layers available for additional work - you would not need to save as a .psd. If you flatten the image, you will lose the layers or steps you used to edit the image and again would not require saving as a psd I only save psd files for templates and images that I know I will continue working on. Since I always have the raw file to resort back to, I save very few images as PSD's these days :) I dont use Lightroom but it sounds like it may be flattening the image when it saves it as a .tif - but I think Lightroom is supposed to remember where you left off with your editing and let you pick back up where you left off ? I did take LR for a test run but until I start doing lots more weddings/portraits, I dont really need it for the way I edit and CS3/Bridge has been all I have needed. Hopefully a LR user will chime in about this. Also - .tifs & .psd files can be save at 16 bit where as .jpg can only be saved as an 8 bit file.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
R K Stephenson |
Hi, Theresa, Lightroom manages the file when you bring a file into PS from LR, so ... Check your save preference setting in Lightroom. For LR2 (I assume it is the same for LR1) go to Edit Preferences (or Ctrl/Cmd-,) Choose the "External Editing" tab. At the top you will see "File Format". Ensure this is set to PSD rather than TIFF. Carleton: My workflow used to be much like yours (judging from past discussions) but I recently switched to primarily LR. I won't hijack this thread with a lot of LR v. PS stuff, but with LR2, there is very little you cannot do in LR and the workflow is faster and there are a few things that LR does better than PS for normal processing. Cheers, RK
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Thank you R.K. for explaining to Teresa how to change her settings. I did the 30 day trial for LR and I do like it but decided to get another lens rather than spend the $$ for LR. I hope to get it eventually and if I start doing more weddings, it will expedite the purchase :) Cheers, Carlton
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
R K Stephenson |
Hi, Carlton, More lenses are always good. =^) The adjustment brush (new in LR2) is the best thing since sliced bread. LR3 is in beta (better noise reduction, et al) and can be downloaded here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
R K Stephenson |
Hi, Theresa, One last thing, to answer your second question. The only difference that I know of between PSD and TIFF is that TIFF does not support transparency. Cheers, RK
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Teresa H. Hunt |
Thanks so much for the information. R.K. I wouldn't mind hearing some of your LR vs PS stuff. I love using lightroom, but I've wondered if it's as good when processing raw images. :)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
R K Stephenson |
Super! Here goes: My intention isn't to trash PS -- I still use it for some things -- so when I compare it favorably v. PS, it is just my opinion. I switched to LR2 for three reasons: 1. More streamlined workflow. Streamlined workflow means that for almost everything I do LR2 is an all-in-one solution. It uses the same basic camera raw engine as PS incorporated righth into the Development Module. So you lose nothing as far as raw processing. Also, all of your edits are non-destructive right in the original file so you don't end up with a bunch of PSDs or TIFFs. (I use DNG, so there are no side-cars, either.) 2. Better management of images. I never cared for Bridge much and catalogs in LR2 work very well for me. I like the way LR2 integrates into my backup scheme and overall I just like the way the catalog works compared to Bridge. 3. Adjustment Brush. This is really the biggie for me. IMHO, it is worth the cost of LR2 alone. The adjustment brush is a very powerful tool allowing you to adjust exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, clarity and sharpness. All non-destructively. No adjustment layers with masks. It has the ability to smartly mask the area you're adjusting which makes it so much easier than PS. I attached an example photo in which I used the adjustment brush to de-saturate to B&W the area surrounding a red door. Compared to PS, it was really painless and the smart mask made it very simple and quick. You still need PS for HDR, panoramas and some creative effects/plug-ins, but for every day work LR2 does it all. Cheers, RK
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
