file format saving

[AMS]

Hi all, just wondering which format is best tp save a file in.

Or a format to suit each display or print.

Getting confused.

Thanks in Advance,

Bears Pics

[ricktas]

I shoot in RAW
Work and Save high quality file in TIF
Save resized for the net in JPG

I have been doing this for years, so if there is a better(?) way now, then happy to hear others ideas on this too.

[nimrodisease]

I do similar to Rick, except that I only export to TIFF (from Lightroom) if I am going to do further processing in Photoshop, in which case I will then save a PSD and delete the TIFF. From the PSD I will export a full-res JPEG. If I am exporting a final image from Lightroom with no need for Photoshop then I will just export a final full-res JPEG.

For a while I was saving reduced resolution JPEGs for online usage, but I got a bit over that. Too much double handling, and sites like Flickr seem to do a pretty good job of resizing these days anyhow.

[Warbler]

PSD or PSB for me too.

[MissionMan]

Shoot in raw, edit in TIF for photoshop. If I am experimenting or not happy with the result I may save in in PSD.

6-12 months later I may convert my TIF's to JPG and delete the TIF (remembering I still have the original RAW as a backup) if I have no intention of changing anything.

[kiwi]

Tifs are huge files, even saving as dng would be better without losing anything I'd have thought

[MissionMan]

Tifs are huge files, even saving as dng would be better without losing anything I'd have thought

SSD :)

[kiwi]

Not sure how a ssd is relevant ?

[MissionMan]

Not sure how a ssd is relevant ?

When you're editing on SSD, the file size is less of an issue, as it's less likely to impact the performance of your machine. SATA 3 SSD can retrieve files at 600MB/s so you're talking about even a 600MB TIF file is going to open in a second. It was simply a way of saying the file size is less of an issue than it used to be.

[kiwi]

Ok. My point is more why safe tiff files when dng is sooo much smaller

[MissionMan]

Ok. My point is more why safe tiff files when dng is sooo much smaller

Lack of ongoing support I guess. Adobe is committed to supporting DNG but is everyone else? TIF is more widely supported. Adobe have kept DNG open but it may die a slow death like flash did if there aren't other parties supporting it.

[Kym]

I use lightroom and PS.
I keep the original raw in LR with LR edits; I only PS special images and keep the PSD for those
Easy!

I agree with Kiwi -- use DNG as a save format rather than TIFF if you don't want to keep the PSD

DNG is an open standard (Adobe made it free) and cameras are using it as a raw format or at least a raw option

[kiwi]

I don't save anything as dng or tiff either currently either :-)

[MissionMan]

I don't save anything as dng or tiff either currently either :-)

One of the oddities with Lightroom is it doesn't actually offer the option to edit in DNG when you export to Photoshop. I suspect more people would use DNG if this was actually an option. It does however give you an option to convert a file to a DNG.

[arthurking83]

Yeah, I agree with Kiwi.

File performance of a tiff or (most)raw files isn't all that much different. That also depends on software used to open/edit the file too tho.

My software(CNX2) opens tiffs or NEFs in about the same time.

In general, a high quality raw file can be contained within a third of the file size of any resultant tiff file.
Or put in terms of numbers .. where 1Tb suffices or raw files = 3Tb for the same number of tiff files.
it already takes way too long to backup just the 1 Tb of files .. can't imagine having to do this threefold!

Unless you have totally committed yourself to only one flavour of software for ever ... proprietary file types (such as PSD) aren't generally regarded as a good option for storage into the future.

While I have committed to a proprietary file format(for now) in Nikon's NEF raw format, I'm hoping that one day into the near future all digital camera makers will agree on an open standardized raw format, whether this is DNG or any other type, as an option for saving their raw files in camera.

So for now, my primary file type (and all backup files) are my camera manufacturers raw file type, and any offshoot derivative files used for various purposes(display, email, print, etc) get deleted at some point in the future.

[ricktas]

Ok. My point is more why safe tiff files when dng is sooo much smaller

you can now save as TIF (Zipped) automatically, which reduces the filesize for storage

[kiwi]

Any notion that Adobe won't be around in the foreseeable future is a bit flat earthish I think

[MissionMan]

Any notion that Adobe won't be around in the foreseeable future is a bit flat earthish I think

How many people said that about Adobe Flash when Steve Jobs said he would kill it?

You could use another example that if someone said 5-7 years ago that the two leading phone manufacturers would be Apple and Samsung, people probably would have laughed at them.

5 years in the technology world is virtually a generation.

[kiwi]

I think flash et al is quite a different discussion. As are phones. File formats and readers of those formats are very common and there are open source software platforms etc

I can't see any future state where today's dng files are not readable

[arthurking83]

......

I can't see any future state where today's dng files are not readable

While DNG is an open format, it's not one that all major manufacturers have agreed on .. it's simply an open for anyone to use format.
It is open for all to create software capable of reading it, but the question is will it continue to be a relevant format.

If the (current)situation changes and other manufacturers(read that as Sony Nikon and Canon!) get on board with the current DNG spec .. it's safe to assume that this is going to be the image file format of the future.

But what if a majority of the camera manufacturers and some specialist imaging consultation industry group get together and rat out a new free/open raw format that has nothing to do with DNG. And of those manufacturers, they control 99.9% of the volume of the camera market.
All other software will switch to compatibility with the new free/open format, and DNG will eventually fall by the wayside in the future.

My point about proprietary formats had nothing to do about whether the company in question will be around in the future .. it was more about control of the file format itself.
While PSD's are readable by some other software providers, the ability to edit this file format may only be capable within the closed software system of the original provider.
This subsequently means that you HAVE to use the software from (as an example) Adobe.
The point is not whether they'll be around .. it's more along the lines of will they be affordable, or will they provide the software of the future?

Like missionman implied ... Nokia was once the greatest power on Earth .... but a lot less than that now.

While I have confidence in Nikon providing support for NEF for a good many years to come, once again this is not a guarantee that they will continue to do so forever.
And if they change their preferred format, I'm sure they will provide the means to convert to any new format with a tool of some type.

[AMS]

great discussion.

cheers bears pics

[kiwi]

Let's bump this thread in 10 years

[arthurking83]

Let's bump this thread in 10 years

why not do that now! ....

JPEG! (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?128710-new-improved-JPEG-format!&p=1208649#post1208649)


:D

[Speedway]

95% of my shots are JPEG and I haven't seen any reason to change. I have on occasions used raw and after a lot more work I cannot see any difference in prints from raw/tif file or JPEG.
Cheers
Keith.

[ricktas]

The issue is one that we could discuss for years. The problem as I see it is that companies come and go. Look around, how many companies that existed on 1900 are still around in 2014? Even once great companies can end up basically non-existent (look at Kodak). So any of these formats rely on Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Adobe etc to be around forever. Even Apple and its proprietary music formats.

And we are also working on the assumption that RAW formats are the best way of capturing our image data. What if someone comes up with a whole new and better sensor tech next year, but this new tech means a complete change to what we see as RAW at present? We are very bold to be proclaiming that RAW will be the way of the future, in any format, when we are so early on in the digital age.

All any of us can do is what we think will be the best for us. Even if there was a perfect workflow as regards to image types, it could well be that everything we do today is obsolete and not available in 2030.

VHS and Beta wars anyone? And look where both those formats are today.

[ricktas]

The issue is one that we could discuss for years. The problem as I see it is that companies come and go. Look around, how many companies that existed on 1900 are still around in 2014? Even once great companies can end up basically non-existent (look at Kodak). So any of these formats rely on Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Adobe etc to be around forever. Even Apple and its proprietary music formats.

And we are also working on the assumption that RAW formats are the best way of capturing our image data. What if someone comes up with a whole new and better sensor tech next year, but this new tech means a complete change to what we see as RAW at present? We are very bold to be proclaiming that RAW will be the way of the future, in any format, when we are so early on in the digital age.

All any of us can do is what we think will be the best for us. Even if there was a perfect workflow as regards to image types, it could well be that everything we do today is obsolete and not available in 2030.

VHS and Beta wars anyone? And look where both those formats are today.

[MrQ]

I feel that we've had this discussion recently. :) As Rick points out: any of the file formats are just arbitrary choices - they each rely on continued support for continued existence. I think it's fairly safe to assume that all the major formats (DNG/RAW, jpeg, tiff, psd, etc.) will all be around for a quite a while and won't just vanish overnight. All the formats have such huge user bases that even if one of the companies went out of business we'd still see something from third parties, even if it was just software to convert to one of the remaining formats.

So to the OP:
- your camera's raw format is the best format for capture
- if you're only using Adobe software then convert to DNG when you import, otherwise stay with your camera's format
- if you're doing photo manipulation (beyond basic adjustments) then TIFF or PSD (depending on what software you use)
- export to whatever format is required (JPEG for web, etc.)

The main things to remember are:
- some of the formats lose quality and continue to lose quality each time you edit and save (I'm looking at you JPEG :)).
- Raw files (including DNG) tend not to be edited directly. Most software that edits these save a series of edit instructions that get applied to make the final image (called non-destructive editing). This means you can usually step back through the process to restore the image to a previous point.
- Lossless formats (TIFF, PSD) let you edit like crazy and retain image quality.

[AMS]

Thanks