Poll: Do you use PNG files for templates?

[goldscraps]

It seems like more and more people are using the PSD files for templates instead of the PNG or TIFF files. I thought it would be fun to do a poll and see how much interest there still is in the PNG and TIFF files that are usually included with a digital scrapbooking template. Let me know what you thing by participating in the poll. :)

[britnkaysmemaw2]

I voted!

[Scrappinsass]

I voted :)

[Darlene Currie]

This is a great poll to run Anna - especially for template makers like yourself.

[elenasworld]

I don't use the .png files. I can grab them from the .psd or .tiff files if I just want to work with one. Since I have so little space on my HD, I usually just keep the .psd folder to work with.

[donakat]

I was surprised to see the comparison with the psd and tif templates that the tif files were so much smaller. However, with some other layered files (not templates with the simple large colored shapes, but with more typical layered files for a layout) being very much bigger than the psd files. What's up with that? Is that because they were saved without any compression? I did a test with a 4-layer layout, saving as both psd and tif (LZW-RLE compression), and the psd file was 79.4 mb, the tiff file was 64 mb. Is this more typical?

[landofoz]

Andrea, i delete everything except psd .They are taking up valueable space on my drive

[goldscraps]

It really depends on what is in the PSD file. Some of what causes a PSD file to be larger is that it carries a preview within the file also. On some of my larger template files, I put a blank layer at the top to block the creation of the preview data so the file is about 25% smaller.

As with the TIFF, it also depends on what is in it. If there are more large intricate shapes with transparent areas around then (like doodles or something), then there will not be as much compression available. Typically, the compression will make the TIFF a little smaller than the PSD.

Originally Posted by donakat

I was surprised to see the comparison with the psd and tif templates that the tif files were so much smaller. However, with some other layered files (not templates with the simple large colored shapes, but with more typical layered files for a layout) being very much bigger than the psd files. What's up with that? Is that because they were saved without any compression? I did a test with a 4-layer layout, saving as both psd and tif (LZW-RLE compression), and the psd file was 79.4 mb, the tiff file was 64 mb. Is this more typical?

[altimasport]

I voted!

[triciacurtis]

Originally Posted by goldscraps

It really depends on what is in the PSD file. Some of what causes a PSD file to be larger is that it carries a preview within the file also. On some of my larger template files, I put a blank layer at the top to block the creation of the preview data so the file is about 25% smaller.

As with the TIFF, it also depends on what is in it. If there are more large intricate shapes with transparent areas around then (like doodles or something), then there will not be as much compression available. Typically, the compression will make the TIFF a little smaller than the PSD.

It also depends on how the TIF files are saved - if you don't compress and select specific options, the TIF files will be larger than the PSD files. I have an action that I run to be sure the correct options are set so that the TIF files are smaller, but usually it's not by very much in comparison to the PSD files. And personally, even though TIF is recognized and compatible with Photoshop, I still prefer the native PSD files