Significant advantages/disadvantages of image file formats?

[freewolf]

<p>I'm a late-bloomer with photography, having no experience with serious film shooting and half a year with DSLR. I have solid computer experience (and a college minor in comp sci) dating back to the late '70s, so I thought my grasp of general file format knowledge would help me out quite a bit when it came to post-processing and archiving image files. However, I've observed so many different formats and seen countless workflow variations discussed, and I feel a bit swamped in choosing what may work best for me, my camera, and my system (Sony a350, LR 2.3/PS extended CS4 running on Win Vista Home Premium, 32-bit).</p>

<p>I shoot primarily in RAW using AdobeRGB set in-camera, but will (reluctantly) shoot JPEG if running out of card space when taking tons of shots. My current workflow basically consists of importing RAW to LR, doing basic adjustments (crop, WB, color correction, dust spot and noise removal, sharpening, etc.) on each image, then sending to PS for fine-tuning and resizing/watermarking as necessary. Images are sent back to LR as TIFF, and I export that to JPEG only if an image is for web use. I've used DNG some, but it seems to respond less sensitively to adjustments. I've never used PSD and am not really clear on what advantages it may offer.</p>

<p>I'd like feedback from those more experienced regarding the relative advantages/disadvantages of the various image file formats in relation to post-processing as you have found them <strong><em>in practice. </em></strong>Particularly, how does each measure up against the others in terms of workflow, color space handling, adjustment sensitivity, and print quality. Thanks in advance for any replies.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>you realize that setting the camera to AdobeRGB and then shooting raw isn't of any particular value, right? a raw shot has no intrinsic color space other than the builtin jpg 'preview' and whatever you see on the camera LCD.<br>

they're all vaguely TIFF based w/ DNG being a wrapper and PSD started life as a TIFFthing but has morphed into a monster. If I"m moving between Adobe things, it's PSD</p>

<p> </p>

[freewolf]

<p>Thanks, Howard. The color space setting is kept at AdobeRGB for the eventuality that I'm filling up my cards too quickly and have to switch to JPEG (as happened to me at a recent air show with over 900 shots taken).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> If I"m moving between Adobe things, it's PSD</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What is it about PSD that causes you to prefer it for this over just plain ol' TIFF? Does PSD lend itself better to Adobe-based editing better than a more generic format?</p>

[howard_m]

<p>probably nothing but thats how my muscle memory works. I think there is/was a lot of discussion on this topic on dpreview.com in FR forum. check there.</p>

<p>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/763367</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>It's pretty simple Howard, for time of capture RAW is best, and, as you understand already, Adobe RGB will give you a wider gamut if you have to resort to jpeg. For output of RAW from PS, LR, or Aperture, 16-bit tiff is the gold standard. Adobe RGB or ProPhoto will again give you a larger gamut. Adobe recommends raw capture, then 16bit ProPhoto tiff output, though you will find much discussion here about the pros and cons of the different large gamut spaces.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What is it about PSD that causes you to prefer it for this over just plain ol' TIFF?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beats me. Other than the ability to save out duotones, there's nothing PSD provides over TIFF and TIFF is an open format, so far more software products should be able to read it while PSD is proprietary and requires a license to read. Its a good idea to save a Flattened version of either within the format (an option you have to set for PSD in Photoshop). </p>

<p>Now if you're working with documents over 30K pixels, you do need to use the newer native file format of Photoshop, PSB.</p>

[freewolf]

<p>Thanks, Andrew. So there's no real difference in how LR or PS handle files of the various formats once they're imported/opened for editing?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Photoshop or Lightroom, no. Once its opened, its opened. The issue can be other applications that simply have no way to open with PSD but might very well with TIFF due to its wider acceptance and open standard. </p>