Photo native .afphoto file format vs .tiff

[timlt]

Hi, new Photo 1.6 user here, love the app and also ordered the new workbook. 

Have a question about which working file format to use when you have two basic concerns:

• You want to preserve the full functionality of Photo in your working copy
• AND you want to preserve it in a long-term universal file format that will be accessible from other graphics tools.

Q:  For a working file format, what are the key differences between the native .afphoto format, and the .tiff format?   In other words, if you want to keep your working copy and long-term storage version in .tiff, do you give up any significant features vs using .afphoto?

Thanks,

Tim

[v_kyr]

4 hours ago, timlt said:

Q:  For a working file format, what are the key differences between the native .afphoto format, and the .tiff format?   In other words, if you want to keep your working copy and long-term storage version in .tiff, do you give up any significant features vs using .afphoto?

As you already wrote yourself, only the native .afphoto format preserves the full functionality of Photo here (keeps layers, masks and settings intact), but it's not accessible from other graphics tools beside the Affinity line. - In contrast the .tiff format file can be shared and opened by other graphics tools too, but looses the so called working functionality here, since AFAIK other software doesn't handle (keeps showing up) the Affinity layers etc.

[gdavis]

5 hours ago, v_kyr said:

... In contrast the .tiff format file ... looses the so called working functionality...

This is not true.  When you export a tiff, there is a check box in the dialog to enable saving Affinity layers.  It is true that other programs won't see the layers and will only show the final composite image, but the information is still there when you open the tiff up in AP.

As a long term format, I don't think anything will work for the layer information.  That's going to be specific to the application, so you will always need a program that knows the AP specific information whether the file format is tiff or afphoto.  But with tiff at least you'll be able to read the final image with other programs.

I've recently started using tiff as my working file format to make it easier to manage the round trip back to Capture 1.  So far I have not encountered any drawbacks but I'm curious to see if anyone from Affinity has anything more to say about it.

[SrPx]

I handle a big number of apps,  using both native formats and universal ones. This is what I've end up doing after many years both at jobs or freelancing: I save in working, NATIVE app (whichever it is) format in a project until is final. Once it is, I save a copy in a pair of universal formats ( together with the native final one, of course). Meaning, almost always a PNG for fast view and fast show to the project author/client or whoever (I hate JPGs, I know I shouldn't) , and often a TIFF with all fx and special native stuff flattened/rastered to each layer. (that is, mere pixels layers, and the alphas saved when possible). But not through the process. I prefer just use the very native format. Late months, to save memory, that final-only TIFF (or similar format) is often flattened.... Hoping the native files, I'll be able to open 'em. Reason why I typically keep the versions of each app installer which I have more often used, or that can open all file versions, and also several times backed up install disks of my OS(/es), so to at any point in time being able to open stuff. Of course, combined with a pair of external disks (one network based, one just USB) where I back up all essential. A photographer workflow wouldn't apply here, I guess. I have a quite smaller number of files ( and yet, a lot), just extremely hard worked each one, but is very, very rare that I need to go back and access one of those for editing. 1 out 50 times it happens (indeed, recently, but mostly 3D projects), tho (usually not forced to do so, is often an old client asking for another version or sth). Not photographer, but still, one of my current projects folders is right now 150 GBs (and is NOT Affinity's files... I make HUGE files no matter with what software, lol... )

[timlt]

I haven't decided which way I'll handle this yet, but thanks for the input, gives some things to consider.

Here's an interesting comparison:
* Just opened a RAW (.DNG) 24MB file.  Did some "develop" steps to clean it up.

* Save a copy in .afphoto format (164MB) and then export to TIFF preserving Affinity layers (244MB), and to PNG (61MB). 

That's a sample of one, so hardly definitive.  But in this case, it appears with large/complex working files, the .afphoto format preserves all the info and does it in a more compact file. I know that disk storage is relatively cheap these days, but the TIFF file is nearly 10x larger than the original .DNG file.  That is a LOT of consumed space when doing things like opening for editing, storing on disk, backing up to the cloud, etc.  And it doesn't seem like you're gaining anything with the TIFF other than POSSIBLE universal access in other graphics apps.  Worth considering.

For my use, almost wondering if I'd do better to just keep the original RAW .DNG file, plus a working copy in .afphoto in the cases where I add a bunch of complex editing to the RAW file, and then a larger, totally clean output file in a lossless but compact format, such as PNG.  This file would be the basis for others to view the 'original' and also for outputting lower quality JPEG files, say for the web.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by timlt
Add PNG output info

[SrPx]

Tiff saved without compression marked (uncompressed) not only is more likely to have less probs in opening later, they do compress (often 10x...) really great as zip files, specially if using a good utility. But is a total pain to be opening zip files if that's gonna happen frequently to that file. If is for mere storage, might want to consider it (7zip is an example of an excellent compressor, just Windows only. Obviously you can open a zip from any OS without utilities)

I see a good measure, the RAWs + Affinity native +.....Instead of a PNG (well, or besides it), maybe a layers flattened (single-layer file) TIFF (supports alpha channels, DPI data, and CMYK color model when needed, (among other things) PNG does not).

[ianrb]

I have often wondered what is "best" or "better" --- I may have added a thread with similar questions as the OP
My biggest drama is the Ap format is not viewable in Lr5, or On1 2018; however the format is viewable in Win 10.
The few small tests I have done didn't show any difference between Tiff with layers and the Ap format when reopened into Affinity; which is my main advanced editing app ATM --- forgotten what happened when saved as Psd
Tiff has been ok when layers are saved, no dramas at all; and the file format can be sent to and from Lr5.
On1 was not the Lr replacement I was hoping for -- v2019 is sounding better so maybe next year. 
I may as well delete Pse12 now I'm  getting more used to the Ap way. 

File types would have to be the biggest drama  in digital photography

[Fixx]

Seems TIF saved from Photo can contain all information that is presented as layers in Photo file (that would mean about all nondestructive operations but history and snapshots?) These layers (even the simple pixel layers) cannot be read with Photoshop though, only the composite image. Neat feature, though. It means you can use TIF as working format. .afphoto would still be faster to operate, I guess.

[walt.farrell]

5 hours ago, Fixx said:

that would mean about all nondestructive operations but history and snapshots?

I did some experiments yesterday, and you're right that a .tif file can't preserve history as a .afphoto file can. But to my surprise a .tif will preserve snapshots when you save the Affinity layers.