Scanning: What format do you store your files in?

So I don't shoot a ton of film, maybe a roll or two a month on average. Some months more, some months less. But some of it is medium format and when scanned to a tiff, the files are huge. I know you can use zip compression on 16 bit tiff files but they're still pretty big after being compressed that way.

 

And I also know that once I'm done with my edits I could store in a high quality jpg or even an 8-bit tiff but I'm afraid of losing something.

 

Or what about a file I may not want to edit now and come back to later? Are my fears unwarranted? Probably a little. If I want to get a high quality print, I usually would know right away.

 

So what do other people do?

Even with cheap Terabyte drives, tiff files are too big except for real show stopper images, at least for me. DNG is another larger file format.

 

For others, and I have a lot of them, I use maximum jpg after "spotting" is done. This is usually less than 3 MB for 4000ppi scans at 'standard/baseline'.

 

I never work with the 'original' jpg, but only with copies.

Scanning is very time-consuming, especially if you include the preparation of the film and cataloging of the results. For my own use, I scan at the highest practical resolution and bit depth, and save the results in non-compressed TIFF format. It is rare that scans are okay without a certain amount of processing, many with a LOT of processing. With Lightroom, those adjustments are non-destructive, but you still need enough headroom to make them. Scanning over again should be the last resort.

Scanning is very time-consuming, especially if you include the preparation of the film and cataloging of the results. For my own use, I scan at the highest practical resolution and bit depth, and save the results in non-compressed TIFF format. It is rare that scans are okay without a certain amount of processing, many with a LOT of processing. With Lightroom, those adjustments are non-destructive, but you still need enough headroom to make them. Scanning over again should be the last resort.

 

So are you pretty discriminating about what you decide to keep or do you just add more storage as necessary? Because a 16 bit tiff from a scan of a color 6X6 MF negative can be over 400 MB in my case.

Storage is cheap. I have about 36 TB of RAID storage available at the moment, but only about 4 TB is devoted to photos. Video alone requires about 4 TB of non-RAID storage per month, but all but about 20 TB is off line. The oldest 4 TB disk is rotated off-line as needed.

 

6x6 film, scanned at 4000 ppi, is about 72 MP, or a little over 400 MB when stored as 16 bit TIFF files. It takes about 2 hours to prepare and scan a roll of 120 film and catalog the results. Backing up a roll takes two DVDs or one BD disk, and discs cost about $0.50 each. That's only a fraction of what fits on a 128 GB memory card, which I fill in about a day and a half when traveling. Time is by far the most expensive part of the job.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

High bit TIFF!

I scan all the frames on each roll at low resolution 8-bit color as JPEG file. Each roll has its own sub-directory with the roll number as the directory name. The roll and frame number becomes the name of each JPEG image. These images become my "digital proof sheet". I import the images into my DAM - before I went mostly digital it was Photoshop Elements Organizer, now it is Lightroom. I assign keywords and change the date of the images to date taken.

 

I use the "digital proof sheet" to select the images I wish to print. I scan these negatives at maximum scanner resolution and color depth directly into Photoshop CS5 via the TWAIN interface. I post process using layers wherever possible and save the final image as a PSD file. I then flatten the image, convert to the printer profile, change the mode to 8-bit, and save as a high resolution JPEG. I upload the JPEG for printing, change the date on the PSD and JPEG files to match the date shot, import them into the DAM, assign the same keywords as the "proof" image, and add the keyword PRINT.

 

If the picture is black and white and I print it in my darkroom, I skip the second scan of the negative and scan the print instead changing the date and adding the keywords.

 

So far it works for me.

If the picture is black and white and I print it in my darkroom, I skip the second scan of the negative and scan the print instead changing the date and adding the keywords.

You do yourself a disservice. B&W film has a dynamic range of 15-18 stops. A scan of B&W film has a dynamic range of 12-15 stops. A B&W print has a dynamic range of about 6 stops.

 

I experimented with contact sheets over 50 years ago, then I learned how to read negatives (and printer cases) without printing. Now I have Lightroom, which will display everything as thumbnails, full size or expanded size at the click of a button. I can flag my picks and display, copy or print only those selected. Having done it both ways, extensively, this way is better.

I go with 8 bit TIFF for film. For large paper or product scans usually 600 to 800 dpi jpeg. Sometimes 300 dpi.

 

I've done lots of multi gen tests. No real degradation after 31 generations of jpeg. If you have unlimited storage, tape drives, etc, go with highest level scans. I don't, so go with what fits.

 

31 Generations of JPEG’s compared

 

Where you see lots of degradation is with video work.

 

This is an example of what can be done with manipulation with 8bit TIFF scans.

 

Silver print vs digital print

 

Storage is cheap. I have about 36 TB of RAID storage available at the moment, but only about 4 TB is devoted to photos. Video alone requires about 4 TB of non-RAID storage per month, but all but about 20 TB is off line. The oldest 4 TB disk is rotated off-line as needed.

 

6x6 film, scanned at 4000 ppi, is about 72 MP, or a little over 400 MB when stored as 16 bit TIFF files. It takes about 2 hours to prepare and scan a roll of 120 film and catalog the results. Backing up a roll takes two DVDs or one BD disk, and discs cost about $0.50 each. That's only a fraction of what fits on a 128 GB memory card, which I fill in about a day and a half when traveling. Time is by far the most expensive part of the job.

 

I completely agree. You scan for the future, and you want to do it only once. Go for the best quality, with the largest file possible. You won't regret it.