Saving NEF to psd or tiff or png?

Atreus · Aug 24, 2008

I don't know if png should be thrown in there, but what are the pros/cons of psd/tiff? i understand theyre both lossless, but what would make one superior to the other?

just curious, because i save as to psd on all of my stuff, then i edit, then go from there......

Bifurcator · Aug 24, 2008

PSD is more robust (stores more information chunks) than typical TIFF images but DNG is the most robust and the very best format for archiving IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format Also see the links at the bottom of the page.

JerryPH · Aug 25, 2008

DNG is best for archival and future changes, however the files are HUGE. I have a 14mb file that after PPing was well over 225mb, and it is nothing all that special either.

If I saved all my files as DNG, I would soon need more than the 18TB of space that I currently have!

I keep it a little more simple... I save the original RAW file and the final JPG. If it is a special file that I spent a lot of work on, I save the resultant PSD. I looked real fast at 5:14AM (just now) and in CS3, the DNG format was not in the list when doing a "save as".

epp_b · Aug 25, 2008

IrfanView can open NEFs and save them as TIFF/PNG/JPEG/etc. It can also do a whole bunch of them in one go with its batch processor.

myles · Aug 25, 2008

What I have read and what moves me to keep everything as a NEF file is file size. Since NX2 came out I have been doing more permanent post processing of RAW images only in NX2. The brush tool and the u-point system gets me to as many places in my PP techniques as I want to go these days. NX has come a long way but it also needs a few more things to make it truly pro, like LAB and CMYK color spaces to start with. So I only use PS for final edits with plug-ins, or actions, which can be easily duplicated after making a JPG image from the RAW.

So I have moved to saving NEF's instead of the huge TIFF or DNG files.

David Myles Stam
www.davidmylesphotography.com

Atreus · Aug 28, 2008

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Bifurcator · Aug 28, 2008

Don't dismiss JPEG-2000 either... It can keep all of you bit depth in tact, camera and shot information, and still be small.

Tolyk · Aug 28, 2008

epp_b said:
IrfanView can open NEFs and save them as TIFF/PNG/JPEG/etc. It can also do a whole bunch of them in one go with its batch processor.

What does that have to do with the question that was asked anyway? They asked about the advantages, not which programs can do it, and can batch process.

I don't have CS3 installed on this computer and it's been months since I've used it. But I never saved in PSD. I just do what Jerry said, without the occassional PSD file. PSD is indeed lossless, but as stated, the files are huge. I just don't have the capacity to be backing up 3 different versions of my files either.

usayit · Aug 28, 2008

JerryPH said:
DNG is best for archival and future changes, however the files are HUGE. I have a 14mb file that after PPing was well over 225mb, and it is nothing all that special either.

Does it grow from 14mb to 225mb due to saving the incremental changes you made in photoshop?

I'm still archiving everything in TIFF... I guess I feel it has been around longer than DNG.

Bifurcator · Aug 28, 2008

The difference is that TIFF is a processed file format. Some destructive changes have been made to the data. With DNG you're optionally keeping the unmodified sensor data.

I haven't ever seen one get 200mb or more personally. In fact I haven't ever seen one larger that about 80mb. And i use the format allot. That doesn't mean it can't happen - it just means I've never seen it.

epp_b · Aug 29, 2008

What does that have to do with the question that was asked anyway? They asked about the advantages, not which programs can do it, and can batch process.

Uh, kind of assumed based on the title. My bad...carry on

JerryPH · Aug 29, 2008

usayit said:
Does it grow from 14mb to 225mb due to saving the incremental changes you made in photoshop?

It likely does have some to do with it. I was looking at a file with about 25 layers, that had the most to do with it, I would say.

JerryPH · Aug 29, 2008

Bifurcator said:
I haven't ever seen one get 200mb or more personally. In fact I haven't ever seen one larger that about 80mb. And i use the format allot. That doesn't mean it can't happen - it just means I've never seen it.

I should introduce you to someone here locally that worked on a single wedding photo and it was over 400mb when finished. A very intricate collage of 18 pictures with "God knows what" post processing he did. It was for a 16X20 that a client asked for. I did not count layers or ask much, I was too busy being impressed and thinking "too big... too big...". :lol:

usayit · Aug 29, 2008

Bifurcator said:
The difference is that TIFF is a processed file format. Some destructive changes have been made to the data. With DNG you're optionally keeping the unmodified sensor data..

Let me change up my question a bit.

If I took an unmodified RAW file and convert to TIFF for archiving purposes, what are the advantages/disadvantages compared to DNG?

My reasoning for sticking with TIFF is that the format
one) has been around since the 80s
two) specification has not changed in over 10 years

But... I am considering other options; DNG being one option since my camera already writes in DNG format. Primary concern is archiving.... ie, will TIFF or DNG be readable 20-30 years from now.

A little background.... My workflow starts with a TIFF version saved with a very basic set of adjustments that are almost always performed no matter what the intentions; WB and levels usually. That file is for archival. I then continue to work from the RAW file until final print. I then save a high quality JPEG files of the version used for final print. What I end up with is usually a TIFF and a couple JPEGs for each frame.