Is TIFF a suitable file type for long-term archiving?

<p>I currently have my most precious photos scanned as 600 to 2400 DPI High Res TIFF files.<br /><br />The question is, is TIFF a good file type for long term archiving? Is it subject to data loss over time?</p>

<p>Any "lossless" format such as TIFF provides a reasonable format for archiving, however its the storage medium that is used which will show degradation over time. As such you might want to store those on different media types (keep at least 3-copies of your data and store at least one copy in a different location). Which media you use will depend on your total storage requirement - and make a new copy of the media at least once a year.<br>

<br /> You could also generate JPEG's and store those on DVD/USB sticks to give to family.<br>

<br /> If you scanned prints, there will not be 2400dpi worth of information in the original images</p>

I would ask, why wouldn't TIFF be a good archival file format? It should be fine as long as there is software able to read the file format. Can you think of a reason why TIFF would not be supported in the future? I think it is safe. If there comes a point where TIFF support starts to be phased out of software for some reason, then at that point you can make a decision to migrate your data from TIFF to some other lossless format.

 

I don't think any data format in particular is subject to data loss over time. The medium on which the data is stored might be subject to degradation/deterioration over time, but that is a separate consideration to the file format in question.

 

So the question is not about TIFF but about your long-term data storage approach.

<p>You loose data because your storage media<strong> will</strong> fail some day. If you are sure to have a properly calibrated screen and also post processed your images to perfection you <em>don't</em> need lossless files like TIFF.<br>

Their advantage over JEPEG is only given if you do a scan open the file adjust x save, reopen adjust y save, reopen adjust z save etc. - A JEPEG will look worse after each re-saving, but you don't loose anything writing the perfect file to drive A, <em>copying</em> it to drive B from there and from B to C and so on around the globe <em>without adjusting anything</em>. <br>

The best way to keep images alive is to spread them to as many people as possible. The odds that aunt Sally will delete TIFFs to regain precious tablet memory are at least 4x as high as that she'll delete JEPEGs. Underpowered devices also have a harder time opening huge TIFFs which makes those less likely to survive there. <br>

As long as your digital darkroom gear and skills aren't fully grown and you see a chance to maintain 3 copies, one of them off site of your files <em>you</em> are fine with TIFFs.</p>

<p>Yes, <strong>stick with TIFF.</strong> It's an openly documented format (yes, owned and controlled by Adobe). It supports everything PSD does (outside Duotone support and some layer support in ID). <br>

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/TiffvsPSD.pdf</p>

<p>A digital archive is no better than the medium and architecture of the backup. Any image format can be archived.</p>

<p>RAW files, if applicable, are the best form for archiving. They constitute the digital negatives, and cannot, in general, be edited or altered. Uncompressed TIFF files are nearly as good, but any changes in color balance, exposure, cropping, etc. are permanently engraved in the file. JPEG files are subject to a lossy compression, and are limited to 8 bits/channel. Repetitive data is abbreviated, but not perfectly, in order to reduce the overall size. The more compression, the greater the loss.</p>

<p>Disk space is relatively cheap, so size should not be the most important consideration.</p>

<p>The "DPI" parameter is meaningless without the projected dimensions of the image. The constant factor is the number of pixels. The dimensions for a given size in pixels changes depending on the resolution, and vice versa. It is good practice to scan or shoot at the highest resolution IN PIXELS. Smaller files can be derived from the master for distribution or other use. The master and derivative files can be archived together, depending on your needs.</p>

<p>Yes, TIFF is a well-defined format that will be understandable probably forever. (I'm referring to the data, not the medium it's on.)</p>

<p>However, I've almost never seen a so-called TIFF file that doesn't contain extensions, which is still TIFF, because the rules allow for extensions. Whether those extensions to the format will be readable is anyone's guess.</p>

<p>Probably if the TIFF is generated by a well-known application, such as Photoshop, it will continue to be readable. If it's generated, on the other hand, by Whiz-Bang Converter, which comes free with the Pretty-Good Digital Camera that you bought on a Black Friday sale, then who knows?</p>

<p>What could be a better TIFF format ? At least for the pixels information, not for the comments, data, etc..where one could add things <em>ad libitum. </em>Could an improved TIFF give better and detectable results to a human brain?</p>

<cite>However, I've almost never seen a so-called TIFF file that doesn't contain extensions, which is still TIFF, because the rules allow for extensions. Whether those extensions to the format will be readable is anyone's guess.</cite>

 

<p>This is a good point. For instance, there are several different compression methods you can use in TIFFs (mostly lossless, but lossy JPEG compression is actually one of the options within a TIFF), and while it's likely that just about any program that supports TIFF can read an uncompressed TIFF, it's probably not as good a bet that all your TIFF readers can read every different type of compressed TIFF. The same probably applies to other optional extensions.</p>

 

<p>So make your TIFFs as vanilla as possible if you want to have the best chance of being able to read them on whatever software you may happen to use years or decades from now.</p>

<p>For early digital cameras (some of the Kodak DCS models, for example) the RAW format was, in effect, TIFF.<br>

The main trouble with TIFF is that for high-bit images, the files can be huge, more than twice the size of a medium jpeg.<br>

As Marc says, the format is fine, but as with any kind of archive the catch is how long the medium on which it is stored will endure. Gold-toned or platinum prints or negatives are still dependent on environmental destruction by mold, water, heat, etc.</p>

<p>The US National Archives has an opinion about this. They have published a paper titled "Technical Guidelines for Digitizing Archival Materials for Electronic Access" (https://www.archives.gov/files/preservation/technical/guidelines.pdf). On page 60 they say<br>

"We recommend the Tagged Image File Format or TIFF for production master files. Use TIFF version 6, with Intel (Windows) byte order."<br>

Later, in "Appendix D", they go into gory detail about the preservation risks (and other issues) for various file formats. <br /><br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For early digital cameras (some of the Kodak DCS models, for example) the RAW format was, in effect, TIFF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really any different today. Most raw files are based on TIFF/EP</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. (Laurence Binyon)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, go with tiff.</p>

<p>About the only limit to TIFF is that it's an inherently 32-bit format and can't handle truly gigantic (over 2 GB) images.</p>

<p>Steven, I routinely make tif files over 2gb. It only takes six or seven frames from a 24mp camera when "photo merging" a panorama, for instance.</p>