Jump to content

File mgmt. Keep fff files after generating a tiff?


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.

 

I'm relatively new to this so bear with me.

 

I "went digital" 18 months ago and am now starting to face the realities of file size, especially with the slow upload speeds I'm getting from my DSL service uploading to the cloud (Dropbox), which I've just upgraded to allow a 2TB backup.

 

The best of my life's work on film was all scanned on a Flextight at Light Work in Syracuse in 2018 and I still have the fff files in addition to the tiff's I generated from them. I've got about 100GB of fff files and the same as tiff files. The tiff files are spotted and corrected and I'm happy with them.

 

Just wondering what some of you might do.. bite the bullet and spend weeks letting it all upload.. or delete the fff files?

 

Thanks for your ideas,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What good are the FFF files? You've got a non proprietary digital file (TIFF) with corrections and spotting and you've hopefully got the film originals. I can't see what the FFF files would provide but if I even considered saving them, I'd pop them on DVDs or a cheap HD 'just in case' but upload em? No.
  • Like 1

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for the feedback.. I've already got them on an external HD + the thumb drive I used when shuttling back and forth to Light Work when I was working on this. And of course the film originals. I'll send the tiff's to the cloud but not the fff's.. just needed some support for the idea LOL Edited by markminard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also keep in mind, the FFF files are not really raw, not anything like raw data from a camera sensor. I really have no idea at what point anyone would go back to them for any purpose, especially if you're happy with the current rendering and all the work on spotting them. With a true raw, as a raw processor improves, or you switch to differing products, that true raw, un-rendered data can be rendered again with improvements, assuming again, you wanted to revisit all this work. Simply not the same with the FFF data. If you have corrected high bit TIFFs, and especially if you're happy with them, the FFF's are far from useful.
  • Like 1

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I really have no idea at what point anyone would go back to them for any purpose,..." I often have... even after cleaning them up and saving the worked file. I don't often limit myself to just removing dust as I work the 1st pass on film scans. Along the way to cleaning them I will often make other adjustments beyond 'spotting' and even though at the moment I may be content with the rendering I will frequently change my mind in the future. I prefer starting over with the original film scan. I also have a taste for some organic flaws (processing accidents, scratches, borders, etc ) in the negatives and will sometimes work with them as opposed to removing them. If I were to convert and save (before working) to a format of choice then sure maybe toss em. it is still going to consume space... but really 100GB is not so much to just keep the originals on a backup drive. Edited by inoneeye
  • Like 1

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing raw about FFF. It's basically a TIFF (it actually is a TIFF). You can edit it differently through the Imacon software assuming you have a system it can still run on. You can also edit an existing RGB TIFF using any software that edits a TIFF. If you still have the scanner, of course you can rescan it too. Now if you scan color negs, and you want to do the inversion over again, and ColorFlex/FlexColor is quite good at this, it might be worthwhile to go this route.

In the end, keep all your data you might revisit. Storage is dirt cheap. You have FFF data and you have the software to use it; keep it. The likelihood I would revisit this may differ from others. I have true raw data from camera sensors and I can count on one hand those images I've actually re-rendered from actual raw because of better algorithms in my raw processor. And sometimes it's super easy to do anyway (an example is altering Process Versions in ACR/LR from really older PVs). I can do that while all the existing parametric edits remain. Not the case with a TIFF/FFF. You''re starting from scratch.

  • Like 1

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wondering what some of you might do.. bite the bullet and spend weeks letting it all upload.. or delete the fff files?

Please pardon my semi confusion; I am not getting the impatient part.

OK; you have some less than lightning fast Internet connection. - I've been there too. But I assume it is at "your(!) home(!)"? Get some crummy computer, today's brats would consider too weak to run a Google search on and let it work, in the (domestic) background. - My previous connection and Netbook would take 2 months to get the job done. I'd most likely let the Netbook harvest music from web-radio stations while doing that chore.

the cloud (Dropbox), which I've just upgraded to allow a 2TB backup.

+

The best of my life's work on film ... 100GB of fff files and the same as tiff files

 

You are paying rent for cloud storage and are reluctant to fill 10% of it? How are you planning to burn the remaining 88-95%?

_______________________

Upon file formats:

  • Yes, I would most likely scan to TIFF16 too, but
     
  • Trying to have my pictures last forever, TIFF is a bad choice.

I'd aim for a compressed presentable final format, if I had the means to judge my images as "finished". - I assume that generations after us will lack patience even more and might not share our love for our images. So files should be as accessible and easy to handle as possible.

Main preservation target (IMHO) would be 4K stills, since more is barely ever needed to pitch your services. - YMMV

 

So in the long run you might end exchanging the cloud stored files.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are paying rent for cloud storage and are reluctant to fill 10% of it? How are you planning to burn the remaining 88-95%?

With a very slow internet connection!

 

No impatience really; I was just blindsided by how long the process would take and this has given me pause to consider how to best manage my files going forward, something I've completely ignored until now.

Trying to have my pictures last forever, TIFF is a bad choice.

I have a vague recollection of reading that somewhere.. Will research it a bit more.

Edited by markminard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing raw about FFF. It's basically a TIFF (it actually is a TIFF). You can edit it differently through the Imacon software assuming you have a system it can still run on.

PS 2020 not only won't open my fff files, it crashes when I make the attempt, just locks right up, requiring a restart. Windows photo opens them immediately. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the frustration of scanning, I knew I would never scan the same pictures again except possibly for special ones. The rest were thrown out. I feel cleaner. Freer. Less junk in my mind and in the closet. I won't even redo the archived digital scanned photo files as I have already used them to make slide shows produced on video software. So in order to update from let's say 2K 1080 resolution slideshows for my old 2k TV's to 4k 2160 slideshows for my new TV, I would have to redo the video editing by reusing the scanned photos, another thing I refuse to do. Playing 1080 m2K on a 4K uprezed TV or monitor is fine. I cannot see the difference.The marginal increase in resolution and clarity is not worth it.

 

There's comes a time when enough is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the frustration of scanning, I knew I would never scan the same pictures again except possibly for special ones.

It's a lot of work. I spent a week at Light Work taking advantage of their Flextight scanner. Even the 20 year-old digital/PS gurus there were floored by the scans I got from my 6x6 negs.

Edited by markminard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Trying to have my pictures last forever, TIFF is a bad choice.

I

TIFF format is the National Archive standard for digitisation of physical records of archival value, see,

 

Preservation Digitisation Standards | naa.gov.au

 

"The preservation format for all non-audiovisual records is TIFF, with JPEG and PDF file formats used for access derivatives. TIFF is designed to capture all the attributes of typed or written text accurately as high quality images in a stable format and is widely supported for the digitisation of archival records. The preservation standard for audiovisual formats varies for audio, video and motion picture film, but is compliant with industry standards."

 

Therefore, the TIFF format should be around for a long time, even after November 3rd.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea TIFF is a bad idea is itself a really bad idea!

 

TIFF is an openly documented file format. Owned and controlled by Adobe yes but anyone can use it in their software at no cost, complete and totally described and documented for use in any product. Unlike PSD, FFF etc.

TIFF has been around longer than just about any other digital imaging file format. It supports virtually everything found in a PSD but PSD is both proprietary and supported in far less products and those products must pay for usage.

About the only thing as openly documented and supported is JPEG. Forget layers. Forget high bit data. Kind of worthless for archival use of high quality digital images.

TIFF is the best file format for archive of digital data due to the facts above.

  • Like 2

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

research

Not needed. Software wise you are playing safe. - TIFF is technically a very accessible / future proof formatas Glenn & Digitaldog are stressing out above

The issue I see is just psychology / human nature.

Who (i. e."what kind of person") will inherit your files? - Worst case: Lackadaisical and underequiped for starters and stressed out on top of everything.

Give such folks a chance to access compressed images with just enough quality for printing a coffee table book as quickly as possible.

The smaller the package the more likely it is to get shared / passed / enjoyed.

If you leave a capable NAS full of big image files, folks might either consider it too big to take it home or grab it to do something silly (like storing recorded telenovela?)

 

Yes, I am a pessimist.

If things go unusually smooth and somebody appreciates your big files: Fine! But considering all the effort to preserve them (properly backed up) it would be mad to not pack a compact package of everything on top of that.

 

Once we are gone our images are challenged to find a new curator.

I'd place hope on some surviving in a bearably compact package of JPEGs in a remote corner of somebody's main HDD, if that package gets sent to all relatives.

 

If you all are famous enough to have fans ready to fight over the honor to keep your TIFFs on their NASs: Grats & envy!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if your not famous, after your gone who is going to really care about your FFF scans let alone your TIFFs?:D

And if you are famous, like Brett Weston, you might want to destroy your negatives or digital files in order to exert some control over your legacy.

 

"Weston, on his 80th birthday and two years before his death in 1993, surrounded by friends and family, tossed every one of his negatives into a brightly burning fireplace in his home in California. He had been promising to destroy all his film for more than two decades in a bid to pass on ultimate control over the editioning of his work to his estate."

See, Burned to Nothing: When Photographers Destroy Their Own Negatives

 

Personally, I think that my only photographs that will last a while after I am gone are prints, especially those that I have printed, mounted, and framed and then given to friends and family or sold. Also, a small number of photographs that have ended up in archived scientific journals. I should however put together a few DVDs, in jpeg format, of family photos to pass on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you are famous, like Brett Weston, you might want to destroy your negatives or digital files in order to exert some control over your legacy.

I'm not famous, like Brett Weston, nor would I destroy my negatives or digital files.

I find it hilarious that some people, some without any images to show us here, suggest that our images and their archives are important to anyone after they are 'gone'.

But this is well beyond the discussion of backing up data, what kind and which file formats will more likely be around in the future. TIFF yes. FFF. No.

  • Like 2

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not famous, like Brett Weston, nor would I destroy my negatives or digital files.

I find it hilarious that some people, some without any images to show us here, suggest that our images and their archives are important to anyone after they are 'gone'.

But this is well beyond the discussion of backing up data, what kind and which file formats will more likely be around in the future. TIFF yes. FFF. No.

LOL yeah we're going off track a bit but still enjoyable, especially when the subject of Brett Weston comes up. My initial motivation for buying that SL66 you see in my avatar pic was Brett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you are famous, like Brett Weston, you might want to destroy your negatives or digital files in order to exert some control over your legacy.

 

"Weston, on his 80th birthday and two years before his death in 1993, surrounded by friends and family, tossed every one of his negatives into a brightly burning fireplace in his home in California. He had been promising to destroy all his film for more than two decades in a bid to pass on ultimate control over the editioning of his work to his estate."

See, Burned to Nothing: When Photographers Destroy Their Own Negatives.

John Charles Woods wrote a definitive biography about Brett and devotes 5 pages to this event. After much lobbying by friends, family, and the CCP, approximately 60 of his negatives made it unmolested to the CCP in Arizona; he gave his brother Cole the negatives for his most well-known photographs, however they had been punched thru several times each with a hole-puncher and each had "NO PRINTS" written across them. He gave negatives to other assorted friends with the understanding they would never be printed but the bio doesn't say whether of not those negs had been hole punched or whatever.

 

The CCP holds an amazing archive of his work for anyone interested:

eMuseum

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...