Shooting and Saving : Filetypes : Poll

[ricktas]

Recently there was an interesting thread on AP regarding file saving and storage, thanks mongo; for starting an interesting discussion.

So based on that, I thought lets see what everyone does. Do you shoot in RAW or JPG? What filetypes do you keep/archive?

Multiple choice poll so you can choose both how you shoot and how you save.

[CarolTas]

I tend to use the Raw and Jpeg combination, I have often thought about just using RAW only. :confused013 I always keep my Raw files and and usually the Jpg's. I don't really have a good workflow and probably should work on it.

Oops didn't realise this was a poll.

[ricktas]

I tend to use the Raw and Jpeg combination, I have often thought about just using RAW only. :confused013 I always keep my Raw files and and usually the Jpg's. I don't really have a good workflow and probably should work on it.

Oops didn't realise this was a poll.

you can take the poll at any time, even if you have commented.

[ameerat42]

I sometimes use/keep an intermediate high-quality file, like PSD, on my way to a final jpeg.
There might be a full-size final jpeg and a smaller one for posting here.
Am.

- - - Updated - - -

Beginner photographers may get a little confused about the terms used. By all means, use this thread to ask about anything you don't understand.

As a spin-off from this poll, I searched for the "difference" between RAW (usually not capitalised) and TIFF (usually capitalised), using "16 bit tiff vs raw".
There were a lot of "forum question" type references many of which had confusing replies (not answers), but one interesting discussion was
THIS ONE (http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/#.VT2gpZOjFwg).

One particularly clear distinction the blogger made was as quoted...

Chris: Which one is truly a digital negative?

Chuck: I would say “neither.” In my opinion, RAW image data is more accurately described as a digital latent image in the respect that it has not been processed
into a usable image until it is rendered into a new file and stored in a different recording format, such as TIFF or JPEG. In the world of film recording, the term “negative”
refers to an image that’s been processed to a certain degree.


It's not that "digital negative" is such a useful term, but it just helps to clear up some fuzzy ideas we sometimes bandy about.

Anyway, the rest of the short interview may be of use.

Am.

[ricktas]

To add to what you say Am, a few years back and I cannot recall which model it was, but one of the Canon camera's raw files could just be renamed from Canon.raw (or the raw extension Canon use) to Canon.TIF and the file was perfectly readable. The raw format for that particular model was simply a TIF file to begin with.

[bricat]

And you used terminology not associated with canon. IE Canon raw files are CR2. So TIFF(which I have heard of) and PSD are terms not usually associated with when editing in Canon DPP. If they are I haven't reached that stage yet. cheers Brian

[ricktas]

And you used terminology not associated with canon. IE Canon raw files are CR2. So TIFF(which I have heard of) and PSD are terms not usually associated with when editing in Canon DPP. If they are I haven't reached that stage yet. cheers Brian

Not sure what you mean? as you said CR2 are Canon's raw files, and the poll has RAW as an option, but you cannot save as a CR2 file once you have edited it. So you need to save in another format. TIF/PSD are high quality image file types that are non-lossy. JPG is a lossy, lower quality file type. When you use Canon DPP and go 'file save as' you should be offered a list of filetypes to save with, these would include JPG, TIF, BMP and more, most likely.

I wanted to make the poll as generic as possible without having to name all the different raw file nomenclature for each brand, and list all the other image file types. So I gave a couple of examples only.

But here you go, the raw file extensions used by various camera brand manufacturers:

Canon : CR2 and CRW
Nikon : NEF
Olympus: ORF
Kodak : DCR and KDC
Minolta : MRW
Pentax : PEF
Fuji : RAF
Sony : SRF
Leica : DNG
Panasonic : RW2
Hasselblad : CFV
Samsung : SRW

EDIT: from youtube, in Canon DPP, you can choose File > Convert and Save : gives you an option for file format, where you can choose the various image file formats.

[ameerat42]

I'm not sure what you mean, Brian - or who. DPP would certainly be able to save as TIFF, and since PSD is
Adobe proprietary format, I'm not sure if DPP can save or convert to it.
Am.

- - - Updated - - -

...a-a-and I had a phone call while writing this so I didn't see Rick's reply.

[arthurking83]

Canon's DPP does save in both tif and jpg file types .. but as already said not in other manufacturers proprietary formats.

The [save] option gives you the available options, of which there are a few for each of the two file types.

Nikon's equivalent software .. ViewNX2 .. also gives the raw file editor a few options, but they do so in a bit of a convoluted setup.

The file type currently active can only be saved in the file type that it exists as, if you use the save/save as option.
That is, a jpg can only be saved as a jpg .. tif as a tif, and NEF as an NEF.

To change the file type, the Convert tool in another part of the screen needs to be used.
Why they didn't see fit to have those two relatively similar tools grouped together is beyond my ability to comprehend.

But the Nikon system has an advantage in that you can save the file into multiple versions of itself.
While all software allows you to do this for jpgs and tifs .. not all have this option for raw files.
So the overall benefit is that you can have multiple copies/variations of the one raw file.

(not that Nikon's newer software is a major step backwards from this once useful proposition .. but that's now old news)

Also, on the topic of how to accurately describe what a raw file is .. digital negative is the more accurate terminology .. especially compared to this term of digital latent.
The description provided in the quote that a raw file is not processed, is a gross misunderstanding of what a raw file is to most users.

All raw files(as most of us know them) are processed in some way. That we further process them is simply a further step that we decide is appropriate.
But processed is exactly what happens to the raw file.
If not, we basically wouldn't see it.
IN a sense the person making this claim could be considered correct, in that the raw file itself is just a collection of digital numerical values that describe what each pixel data point should provide, but that description needs to be rendered too. For that rendering process, a 'process' needs to be applied to make the collection of data useful in any meaningful way.

So while the raw file is just a set of data, that data is useless if it's not rendered as an image. The rendering of the image requires at the least a tone curve and a colour profile to be applied. Colour profile and tone curve is a process .. ie. it's processed.

The reason this is important to note is simple .. each software will render the same raw file differntly.
The basic premise made here is that each software processes the usable raw file differently.

The notion that the raw file is not processed is a gross inaccuracy of reality.

The comment made earlier that to a degree the notion can be considered correct, is that some software do exist that only really use the data in the raw file.
While it still needs to apply a tone curve and colour profile, this software allows you to see the actual raw data in it's completely useless glory(if you're so inclined).
Obviously some folks are .. I was only curious to see what/why .. but I'm not that way inclined.
If you are curious to the nth degree .. RawDigger is your port of call. I don't recommend it tho.

I only want a raw file to see what the image is(not what the data is) .. and processed it most definitely is.

[fillum]

I typically edit in LR (so non-destructive) but don't generate sidecar files. I then export to JPG. So this would be:-

Saving: Keep RAW + JPG

Personally I'm not particularly concerned that this option isn't there, but I would have thought that this is quite a common workflow.
(Or have I completely missed something? :o)



Cheers.

[ricktas]

Saving: Keep RAW + JPG

Personally I'm not particularly concerned that this option isn't there, but I would have thought that this is quite a common workflow.
(Or have I completely missed something? :o)



Cheers.

Knew I would miss one or more options as I created the poll. I can add it now

[swifty]

Knew I would miss one or more options as I created the poll. I can add it now

Actually that's me too. But I just chose the nearest option since I occasionally use Tiff or PSD files too.

[yummymummy]

I shoot in RAW most of the time, unless I'm shooting sports, then it's jpeg. I always save RAW files, but also use lightroom for sports jpegs for easier batch processing, and it depends on the job as to how I save the other edited files. If it's for a client that is just getting them as prints, then jpeg in sRGB or RGB colour space, if it's for a client that wants a larger size print, say for poster then I save as TIFF as it's lossless.

[bricat]

Sorry Rick, I did not mean to make more work for you!!! I don't have LR or CS 3,4,5,6, so any adjustments are done in DPP. I then just save that file using the same file number with the addition of a letter, "a" "b" "c" etc. It does not matter which format I am in as I just save and keep the original untouched.
I looked at the other options in DPP of save 8 bit tiff. etc. or 16 bit tiff. etc.
As I said in my original post Tiff and PSD are beyond my use at this stage and so I was unfamiliar with the (PSD)terminology.

With the new addition I would put save keeping Raw + Jpeg.

Of course I read and re-read replies to try and get a better understanding. cheers Brian

[MrQ]

Where does DNG fit? It's still a RAW file, but converted and without a sidecar file.

[ameerat42]

Where does DNG fit? It's still a RAW file, but converted and without a sidecar file.

That's right, MrQ. Here is an explanatory link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative)
:D

[Gonk0]

Not sure what you mean? as you said CR2 are Canon's raw files, and the poll has RAW as an option, but you cannot save as a CR2 file once you have edited it. So you need to save in another format. TIF/PSD are high quality image file types that are non-lossy. JPG is a lossy, lower quality file type. When you use Canon DPP and go 'file save as' you should be offered a list of filetypes to save with, these would include JPG, TIF, BMP and more, most likely.

I wanted to make the poll as generic as possible without having to name all the different raw file nomenclature for each brand, and list all the other image file types. So I gave a couple of examples only.

But here you go, the raw file extensions used by various camera brand manufacturers:

Canon : CR2 and CRW
Nikon : NEF
Olympus: ORF
Kodak : DCR and KDC
Minolta : MRW
Pentax : PEF
Fuji : RAF
Sony : SRF
Leica : DNG
Panasonic : RW2
Hasselblad : CFV
Samsung : SRW

EDIT: from youtube, in Canon DPP, you can choose File > Convert and Save : gives you an option for file format, where you can choose the various image file formats.

One extention for you to add rick is for Sony .ARW as that is the Sony a6000 RAW file extension.

[tduell]

...and some Pentax models save in DNG, and some models give you the option of PEF or DNG.

Cheers,
Terry

[ricktas]

...and some Pentax models save in DNG, and some models give you the option of PEF or DNG.

Cheers,
Terry

DNG is a RAW format. Leica also save in DNG. So for the purposes of this poll, DNG is treated like all other RAW files.

[Mark L]

I don't have LR or CS 3,4,5,6, so any adjustments are done in DPP. I then just save that file using the same file number with the addition of a letter, "a" "b" "c" etc. It does not matter which format I am in as I just save and keep the original untouched.
I looked at the other options in DPP of save 8 bit tiff. etc. or 16 bit tiff. etc.
As I said in my original post Tiff and PSD are beyond my use at this stage and so I was unfamiliar with the (PSD)terminology.



So you would save in tiff if you wanted to go to something else to do further PPing after doing what you want in DPP (better than doing it with jpeg)
Also, you don't really have to make more files by keeping the original untouched. Just save the changes to the original Raw file in DPP. If you want to go back to the untouched file for some reason, just go to Adjustment and click on the Revert to shot settings. Your back were you started.
Of cause if you want to compare what you are about to try again, save the changes to the original before playing with it again.

[arthurking83]

..... I then just save that file using the same file number with the addition of a letter, "a" "b" "c" etc. It does not matter which format I am in as I just save and keep the original untouched.
.....

(assuming you're working with raw files)
Even if you actually saved the original using either the Ctrl-S(quicker) option or the File->Save option and saved the original raw file, you can always go back and re-edit this file back to its 'original state' if you like.
So don't be afraid of editing the raw file .. even if you think there is some importance in maintaining the original raw files pure integrity.

This is the beauty of raw files .. no matter what you do to them .. as long as you use that same software, you can mangle them to death .. and yet maintain the ability to restore them back to their original state if need be.

I'm curious as to the a, b or c suffix on the file name too tho.
If you're renaming the file, then by default you'd be saving to a new format .. unless your original format is tif or jpg of course, and you're saving to the same format, which makes perfectly good sense.

[Hamster]

I shoot in RAW, then import into LR where I do most of my editing. If I take an image to PS because I need editing tools I don't have in LR then I import back into LR as a TIFF when I've finished. If that editing is complex, such as an out of bounds shot, then I will probably save a PSD file to allow future editing when I spot some mistake or change my mind on something. If I want to print or send it somewhere like an AP competition then I export to an "export" folder, the contents of which get deleted fairly regularly.

[bricat]

I keep the original so as to compare any adjustments made as Mark L suggested. If I redo I can compare the different options. When I save, the file number of the photo comes up, ie. 6570. If I saved to that it would overwrite so I just add an extra letter/number. I don't go into options which bring up Tiff options etc. So it saves in the format with which it had been shot/saved, CR2(raw) or Jpeg. It seems to work for me cheers Brian

[MrQ]

So for the purposes of this poll, DNG is treated like all other RAW files.
So keeping edited DNG files from Lightroom would be "Saving : Keep RAW + sidecar file (non destructive edit : Lightroom etc)" for poll purposes??

It's an interesting poll and I just wanted to make sure my response goes in the correct spot. :)

[ameerat42]

I'd say so, MQ.

[ricktas]

So keeping edited DNG files from Lightroom would be "Saving : Keep RAW + sidecar file (non destructive edit : Lightroom etc)" for poll purposes??

It's an interesting poll and I just wanted to make sure my response goes in the correct spot. :)

yes it would, cause your original DNG file is not 'touched' as such, it is still there, with edits sitting on top of it. But the original DNG raw file is still there.

[Mark L]

Am a little surprise there aren't more voting for Shooting : JPG
It's a valid way to go for many people.

[arthurking83]

I think, yes and no(on the validity of shooting jpg)

1/. if you have a jpg only camera, then of course there is no other way.
2/. if you have a camera that can shoot at a higher quality setting, then why not. Apart from the more restricted space capability, (FOR MOST PEOPLE) there really isn't much in the way of negatives that makes shooting in a higher quality format.

** if you specifically need an extremely large buffer for long continuous shooting, that jpg shooting allows with many cameras, then you are not 'most people'. You are a specific type person with specific needs. **

Personally, the number of jpg only shooters to my mind seems a bit high, for a website that caters to photography devotees .. and the implication of that term devotee(or amateur, nutcase .. etc) would be that the individual would be seeking greater quality.
Much like a audiophile would seek greater quality of sound reproduction, or a (proper)car enthusiast would for their automobiles and so on ...

As people with a greater level of interest in photography than the average person snapping away with their smartphone, we generally tend to try to extract more from our images(ie. via convoluted shooting disciplines, and or extensive PP, etc).
Therefore shooting jpg, due to it's inferior quality output and/or limited malleability in PP, seems to be out of kilter as a choice of capture file type with any photography related site.

I think that realistically, the only reason we all use jpg, is for display/sharing purposes, and that's it.
It's the common language of the photography world.
Where we argue and quibble about settings, manufacturer brands, techniques, capture formats, processing techniques .. (the list goes on as to what we do argue/discuss/disagree on) .. the final output .. jpg .. is our only common link due to it's ubiquity and standardisation.
Hopefully one day all parties will also agree on other image file formats with natively higher quality properties.

FWIW: there is a possibility that the default image file type we currently view as indispensable or all pervasive(jpg) .. could be replaced with something else in the future (possibly bpg?) .. OR .. the jpg decoding system could be updated to reflect the want/need for greater qualities from the image format, but with the same level of commonality.

jpeg 9.1 is a new version of the jpg codec ... (remember jpg is not just an image type, it's an file codec, which compresses the data into a file and then decompresses the file to look like an image!!).
This updated version of the jpeg codec is going to include much higher quality options in the common jpg format.
currently jpg colour options are limited to 8bit, whereas the new codec will allow colour capture to be 12bit if desired .. and lossless compression.
ie. in the future jpg will be an actual viable alternative to raw(in this rendering quality and malleability) .. but of course raw files will still have an advantage in some ways.

For now, with the current jpg level of quality that jpg allows .. the effort of capturing an image of some value in the jpg format could be considered a wasted effort. Why go to the trouble to capture an image of value, but then limit what can be done with the image.
But in the future, this impending jpg format(if it's adopted by the manufacturers :confused013) could be more than enough for even the most astute/fussy photographer.

Did you know that there are already higher quality jpg formats currently available for you to play with(not in camera tho).

M$(if you have a M$ base computery device have had an alternate(still jpg based) image format standardised for a few years now.
No one knows of it. M$ obviously do, but the issue is commonality/ubiquity.
If no one knows of it, they just don't know that they can use it.
Many image viewers/editors recognise the format, some do natively, others via a plugin.
The file format has a .jxr file extension. (JPEG XR!)

Of course you can't capture your cameras images in this format, as the camera manufacturers haven't programmed the codec into the camera's processor.
And that's all it takes .. some manufacturer to take the bold(yet simple) step of allowing the option for some alternate file formats.

I think of Nikon with this(probably other manufacturers too, I assume) .. but why on earth include TIFF as a file format option. Who the hell in their right mind would shoot a D800 in TIFF mode?
it's insane .. 200Mb files(as opposed to the regular 70-ish Mb files) .. you'd have to be mad too.

[s1l3nt]

Personally, I shoot in RAW. I save my raw file + sidecart file + JPEG version which goes up on my site :) I don't make a living from my photography (or any money for that matter) and don't really shoot as often as I would like too, so don't run out of space on drives...

[Mark L]

Personally, the number of jpg only shooters to my mind seems a bit high, for a website that caters to photography devotees .. and the implication of that term devotee(or amateur, nutcase .. etc) would be that the individual would be seeking greater quality.

Yeah, 'spose. There hasn't been as many beginners contributing to AP lately? Devotees start somewhere and before that I imagine jpg is where they start? And there's nothing wrong with that, for a little while.

[nimrodisease]

Generally speaking, I keep RAW, side cart file and JPEG. However IF I do any Photoshop edits then I will also keep a PSD/PSB.