Need External Hard Drive

So, shoot raw, convert to Tiff.

I agree about shooting in RAW format (for stills, anyway). However deterioration of JPEG images on alteration and resaving is true, but has nothing to do with deterioration over time.That is a physical process of the media, or a change in standards. Floppy discs would probably still be readable (low track density) S, but what would you use to read them? Samples of cuneiform tablets 3000 years old are more readable than sulfite paper pages printed in the late 19th century.

"You're wrong.

Time has nothing to do with that. The number of times a JPEG (or any format that involves lossy compression) is opened, altered and saved again does.

RAW converted to TIFF may be RAW or any other format (even JPG). The arrangement of bits and what those bits represent has nothing to do with it either" Q.G

 

Interesting, but.

 

A thought.

 

My understanding is, TIFF images are difficult to alter making them ideal for protecting information and archiving., TIFF is a clean file format which contains no links or hidden data and therefore can never have a virus embedded within it.

TIFF is a container format that can contain data in just about any format.

TIFF files can contain more than one other files, having a directory to what and where in a header.

TIFF files are not difficult to alter. No different than any other file format.

Being a container, adding extra info to a TIFF file is easy.

"TIFF is what’s known as a loss-less format, what you see is what you get. Formats like JPEG are compressed to create smaller file sizes which reduces file quality. While larger in size, saving files in this format ensures that images will produce and maintain the highest quality for future use"

 

Loss loss format

 

Maintain the highest quality for future use.

TIFF can contain both loss less and lossy compressed file formats. So no: if your TIFF contains a JPG file, it is the same as a JPG. The JPG then just has a TIFF wrapper around it.

IMO, it is pointless to use a compressed TIFF format when the goal is to have a high-quality image file, especially one derived from a RAW image. You save relatively little space, and I've had trouble opening compressed TIFF files in some software. In general, you can copy but not alter a RAW file and save it directly (without hacking). You must save it in some other format, like TIFF or JPEG.

If I spend time to create a "master" file for printing or display, I generally save it in TIFF format at the original resolution. From Lightroom, it's necessary to render non-destructive editing permanent. From Photoshop, I usually save it with adjustment layers, which can be revisited for further editing. These files are very large. Unless the client expects to do extensive editing, or requests otherwise, I use JPEG files for the deliverables. They take far less time to electronically transmit as well. I haven't burned deliverables to a DVD or BD in over a year. Think of how many 25 GB DVDs it would take to archive a 128 GB memory card, and TIFF files are approximately 3x the size of RAW files.

Video is all that, on steroids. Video for a typical session or event, recorded in ProRes422 (5:1 compression) requires 1 to 1.5 TB of disc space. Video can actually be rendered in JPEG or TIFF format, only if you're half crazy. I save and deliver the results in H.264 MP4 format, at roughly 30:1 compression (500 MHz reduced to 16 MHz for 1080p60). I save the original video on hard drives, the electronic equivalent of film cans.

. "So no: if your TIFF contains a JPG file, it is the same as a JPG. The JPG then just has a TIFF wrapper around it" Q.G

So, you agree, that a Tiff wrapper around a Raw image, is superior to a Jpeg file.

"I spend time to create a "master" file for printing or display, I generally save it in TIFF format at the original resolution." ED.

So, you save from Raw, to Tiff.

"So, shoot raw, convert to Tiff" Allen

. "So no: if your TIFF contains a JPG file, it is the same as a JPG. The JPG then just has a TIFF wrapper around it" Q.G

 

So, you agree, that a Tiff wrapper around a Raw image, is superior to a Jpeg file.

 

"I spend time to create a "master" file for printing or display, I generally save it in TIFF format at the original resolution." ED.

 

So, you save from Raw, to Tiff.

 

"So, shoot raw, convert to Tiff" Allen

As far as bit rot on hard drives, optical discs, tape, or whatever is concerned, there is absolutely no difference.

TIFF is a container. It can hold data in raw format, or bmp, or jpeg, or .... Because of that, it is a quite common file format.

But your data are just as safe in, for instance, a psd file.

Shoot raw, save as raw.

Cook raw, and store in any file format that suits your workflow.

As long as it doesn't involve lossy compression, it matters little.

(And again, for concerns about bit rot, it doesn't matter at all)

A wrapper (container) is a protocol which combines two or more data streams into one file. TIFF is not a wrapper, nor is JPEG, PNG or BMP. All JPEG files are compressed, but not all compression is JPEG. Compression, in simple terms, collects similar data into blocs. JPEG blocs are square, and easily seen in some images with or without aliasing.

TIFF is indeed a container, Ed, that is designed to contain multiple subfiles. The format/arrangement of data of the subfiles is described in the header tags that give TIFF its name.

Wrapper smapper, it doesn't matter. My understanding is that whatever it contains, TIFF is lossless compression, and JPGs are Lossy. Theoretically every time you open and close a jpg there is supposedly some loss of data. One good practice if you are working in non-destructive image editors, is to save your raw files, and back them up as raws. If you process in the image editor and want to save the finished image, save to tiff and place them in a folder. It can be with the raws if you wish. If you work in a destructive program like photoshop, importing the image into PS then the raw image is converted and every action taken on it that is saved is generally permanent. Therefore, when you bring the image into photoshop its often a good idea to do a "save as" so you have a copy of the clean image. Saving in PSD is fine, and it allows you to keep your layers and everything active so you can go back into the image and re-work it if you wish. The cost of that is the file sizes and they can get quite large quickly. If you want to kick out the files to print I tend to do that as a Tiff, and if for web sharing as a jpg because of the ability to compress it to take up less bandwidth for photo sites.

But, please continue your discussion, it is sort of informative.

I'm learning from this discussion as well. It appears that my decision to keep the Raw files as they came out of the camera and use a couple of different tools to produce a product for posting, publication, and sharing was unwittingly a good idea. Mostly JPEGs, but I've found that sometimes a TIFF or a png depending on the requirement works fine, but it's just an output from the originally maintained Raw file.

The key thing that makes this all possible for me is that file storage is the cheapest part of the process, including cloud storage so I can readily keep all the originals and outputs.

Wrapper smapper, it doesn't matter. My understanding is that whatever it contains, TIFF is lossless compression, and JPGs are Lossy. Theoretically every time you open and close a jpg there is supposedly some loss of data. One good practice if you are working in non-destructive image editors, is to save your raw files, and back them up as raws. If you process in the image editor and want to save the finished image, save to tiff and place them in a folder. It can be with the raws if you wish. If you work in a destructive program like photoshop, importing the image into PS then the raw image is converted and every action taken on it that is saved is generally permanent. Therefore, when you bring the image into photoshop its often a good idea to do a "save as" so you have a copy of the clean image. Saving in PSD is fine, and it allows you to keep your layers and everything active so you can go back into the image and re-work it if you wish. The cost of that is the file sizes and they can get quite large quickly. If you want to kick out the files to print I tend to do that as a Tiff, and if for web sharing as a jpg because of the ability to compress it to take up less bandwidth for photo sites.

 

But, please continue your discussion, it is sort of informative.

TIFF can contain both (or either) lossy or lossless compressed, and uncompressed data. It's not either or, because TIFF can contain several subfiles that do not have to be the same format.

Opening jpegs does nothing. Closing the file again also does nothing. It is resaving, i.e. after changes have been made, that requires lossy recompressing the data again.

So no, not every time you open and close a JPG file, but each time you save edits.

When PS is in your workflow, and you do not share files, there is no advantage at all in saving your edited RAWs as TIFF files. PSD will do just fine.

If your printer/print shop has PS too, you can give them PSD files. You can flatten them first, if you wish. I'm no expert in colour spaces, but think that allows the printer to convert to an output colour space that matches his printer.

I often flattened and saved as highest quality JPG to have an image printed. Works good too.

Thank God I don't have to think about this. Every negative (at least B&W) I've made back to childhood is still perfectly usable. Most if not all of the color still looks good.

I guess you're lucky in not having had to think about storage and preservation of your negatives. Very special. LOL!

Thank God

Ahh, yes, the God of film ... and obfuscation.

Re TIFF vs. PSD: one can get different answers from different people, but I suggest looking at this: Is it better to store edited photos as PSD or TIFF files?.

I always save in TIFF formats, usually with layers preserved.

Note that many of the ancillary programs used with Photoshop (Nik, Zerene, etc.) use TIFF anyway.

I guess you're lucky in not having had to think about storage and preservation of your negatives. Very special. LOL!

 

Ahh, yes, the God of film ... and obfuscation.

Sorry about that, but negatives are close to immortal while digital files are...somewhat impermanent.

digital files are...somewhat impermanent

So are men. Perhaps the two go well together.

Immortality is overrated, often elusively and sometimes detrimentally hoped or strived for.

Re TIFF vs. PSD: one can get different answers from different people, but I suggest looking at this: Is it better to store edited photos as PSD or TIFF files?.

 

I always save in TIFF formats, usually with layers preserved.

 

Note that many of the ancillary programs used with Photoshop (Nik, Zerene, etc.) use TIFF anyway.

It depends on your workflow. If PS is your main program, there´s no reason why not to store your edited files as in PSD-format. You´re going to open them and work on them using PS anyway. When handing files over to someone else who might use a different program (that can´t read PSD-files), using TIFF format, or any other format that suits the requirement, is a good idea (you may also need to convert from RGB to CMYK, change bit-depth, drop or convert to a colour profile, and such).

The thing is to do what works best, fits in the process best. Whether that is TIFF, or PSD or whatever other format.

Need to contain and store layers? Use a format that supports layers. Further editing may be required? Use a format that supports lossless compression.

Whatever you need.

"When PS is in your workflow, and you do not share files, there is no advantage at all in saving your edited RAWs as TIFF files. PSD will do just fine.

If your printer/print shop has PS too, you can give them PSD files. You can flatten them first, if you wish. I'm no expert in colour spaces, but think that allows the printer to convert to an output colour space that matches his printer.

I often flattened and saved as highest quality JPG to have an image printed. Works good too."

Sure you can do that. But not all of us work exclusively with PS. In fact most people that work a lot with actual photographs do not work exclusively in Photoshop. PSD files are fine for P.S. except for their file size with layers, and for cross-compatibility. So sure ,what you say works, but is quite limited. I also strongly believe if you have raw files, you should back them up as raw. Those are your "negatives" in old school terms. And the back-up set is not used for processing. I don't output from photoshop, so I output the finished image as a Tiff.

If we've moved on to talking about archival storage of digital files, then a non-proprietary, lossless format is the only sensible choice, so lossless TIFF, PNG, or, stretching the definition a little, RAW (proprietary, but relatively open and documented).

Will Adobe still exist in 20 years? Will you have the necessary subscription? Will it read 20 year old files correctly (look to MS Word as an example...)

Replace Adobe with any other software of choice, the questions are the same.

If we've moved on to talking about archival storage of digital files, then a non-proprietary, lossless format is the only sensible choice, so lossless TIFF, PNG, or, stretching the definition a little, RAW (proprietary, but relatively open and documented).

 

Will Adobe still exist in 20 years? Will you have the necessary subscription? Will it read 20 year old files correctly (look to MS Word as an example...)

 

Replace Adobe with any other software of choice, the questions are the same.

But don't think it will be different with other file formats, including TIFF. TIFF has already known problems due to incompatible proprietary data formats. It is a container, not a well defined data arrangement format. Hence the requirement to at least include a base format in every TIFF. Something that all programs should be able to read, even when they can't deal with whatever else is in the TIFF container. But there are no guarantees that any or all programs that suggests it can deal with TIFF can actually read all, most or even a few TIFF files.

Barry, the point was that it makes no sense to use file formats for storage that you do not need.

'Limiting' your choice to what you actually use, excluding all of the thousands of other formats available, makes sense.

You do not need PSD exclusively, so you will need another format. So there is your choice made.

And of course PS can open other formats too, so yes, you could opt for any of those as well.

Just saying that you do not need to worry about file formats if the ones you have and use presently are all that are ever required for the way you work.

My advice? Make prints. They will outlive digital files.

Are you sure? I am not.