JPEG & TIFF FILE FORMATS ?

[jamesmcmurray]

Ok i think i have decided on dealing with storage, so mostly with reference to when i get a new camera capable of RAW would it be best to store copies of the RAW files, so that in future as formats may change i will always have the original untouched RAW file to convert to different formats.

 

[Buckster]

I hadn`t really heard much of the DNG & PNG formats, but sounds like they can less compatible with different software and similar to TIFF.
..........

.DNG is Adobe's open-source answer to the proprietary raw format issue. Instead of all the different manufacturers cameras making .NEFs, .CRWs, .CR2s, etc., the idea is to create one raw format that everyone can use. (Kinda like their .PDF format for documents). Problem is, it hasn't taken root as they planned.

And now that they've shown a propensity to charge everyone a monthly fee to use their most popular software, I simply wouldn't trust them by converting all my files to DNG. There's just no telling what kind of surprise they might have in store for everyone on that someday in the future. No thanks Adobe. It's not that I no longer trust you... Oh, wait... Yes it is.

That said, you know, most of us have read or heard the cautions many times that the "X" image file format may not be readable in the future, and so we should convert our files to the "Y" format instead, but I don't recall it ever actually happening in the 30+ or so years that I've been making and storing image files with computers. But maybe someone else can think of an image file format that can no longer be opened, read, converted, edited, etc. - as an example...

As for the space some of the larger formats take up, also used as a popular excuse not to save them, storage is cheaper all the time - ridiculously cheap. I've got 14 TB of hard drive space here currently, with plenty of room to keep redundant storage of every raw file, JPG and even multi-layered PSD file that I worked hard on and wouldn't want to recreate but MIGHT want to further tweak in the future, all on separate drives, plus off-site drives that get swapped out periodically, plus unlimited backup storage online.

My current plan is to replace the next 1 TB drive that crashes with a 3 TB drive, and so on, because they really are that cheap. And if they go up to 4 or 5 or 6 or even 10 TB drives before the next one crashes, and are still inexpensive, I'll go with that instead of the 3 TB drives that are currently readily available without spending all that much.

I consider such excuses for why larger formats like the RAW that comes out of the camera shouldn't be used for storage pretty laughable, especially for anyone serious about their images. To me, it's like telling film photographers to burn their slides and negatives after they've made a print from them, because the slides and negatives take up space, and you never know if scanners or enlargers and photo paper, or even old school slide copiers will be available in the future (insert appropriate gasp here).

So i guess my primary 2 questions are

1. Is it worth converting my current JPEGS to TIFF, i know it will not up the quality of the image, but is it worth to preserve the quality of the files ?

I don't see any advantage whatsoever to converting JPGs to TIFs.

2. When i get a RAW capable camera should i then save photos in TIFF format to prevent both immediate loss and future loss of quality ?

It's up to you, but I don't see an advantage to that either. I take my storage and ability to keep the best quality for my images very seriously, and I wouldn't personally convert them all to TIF files. For my money, it just doesn't get better than the RAW files that come out of my camera. They provide THE most flexibility and quality I can possibly get out of my cameras, so that's THE main base file I make sure to hang onto and make LOTS of redundant copies of.

Even if the loss with JPEG is minimal, i would rather get and keep the best possible image as file storage space is not an issue.

There's no loss with JPG once they are JPG, unless you edit or "Save As" on them which then re-assesses and re-compresses them.

It's a little like putting something on a copy machine and then putting the resulting copy on the copy machine, then putting THAT resulting copy on the copy machine, and so forth. With each copy of a copy of a copy, the image quality gets worse. But if you take the original and make 4000 copies from it, they're all the same. The answer then is to keep your original intact. You can copy that original file to a 1000 hard drives or online storage without any image degradation. The 1's and 0's stay what they are, unless you edit them along the way. Then, if you do what to make an edit to it, make a copy of the file, and edit that instead. The golden rule is to ALWAYS keep your original intact, and only work on copies.

Unlike the copy machine scenario described above however, the original print that you put on the copy machine WILL degrade over time, whereas the original file of 1's and 0's won't. It may become corrupt for one reason or another, usually because the media it's on is failing. But that's why you make and maintain redundant copies - so that you've always got an uncorrupted backup.

 

[Gavjenks]

Because someone may come along in 5 years and want a different edit than what I originally produced. Having access to the original raw data means I can re-edit the image, from scratch, to the customer's liking instead of mine. And their liking pays better.

Yeah, that's perfectly reasonable. And also perfectly doable with a NON-proprietary (or semi-proprietary) DNG format or 24 bit PNG, either of which could and would hold all of the original bit depth straight from the sensor without throwing anything away, allowing you to do full edits later in 5 years.

NO file format is future-proof. None of them.

Sure, but that's not the point.

If Canon 3rd generation RAW for XYZ specific cameras is no longer supported, then it just goes poof. There's only a couple companies that make software for such specific formats.

If jpeg starts falling out of favor, then you'll have YEARS and YEARS of forewarning, during which time you can convert over to something else. People will stop using it as the default, but then 400,000 programs out there will continue supporting it as a secondary option for a really long time.

The difference is potentially having the rug pulled out from under you versus having luxurious cushions of time during which to transition, if needed.



Granted DNG is more on the rug pulling end of the spectrum than jpeg, tiff, and png are. But I don't really advocate DNG as much as the others. I include it for completeness, but personally I would use a 16 bit tiff or PNG if you want lossless storage for future editing more so.

 

[480sparky]

......If Canon 3rd generation RAW for XYZ specific cameras is no longer supported, then it just goes poof........... .

Incorrect. If a specific file format is no longer supported, it does NOT just 'go poof'. If Canon folded up and closed their doors tomorrow, you really think everyone's software is going to suddenly stop working? If Nikon goes under next week, I'll bet ya dollars to doughnuts my CNX2 will still launch. And Raw Therapee. And UFRaw.

How many people are still editing their .CRWs?


Please stop playing Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.

 

[BrianpStudios]

Very very smart. Great advice, great tip.

I shoot raw.

He's asking about STORAGE formats....

And storing your images in RAW is pretty silly. I see zero reasons to do so, really, and many reasons not to.
If you want to store the full bit depth, etc., then use DNGs or higher than 8 bit tiffs or pngs or whatever.
These will do the same thing as RAW and MORE, because RAW is a proprietary format that usually doesn't support all kinds of edits (like transparency, for example). Some I don't think you can even save in at all, meaning you'd be storing unedited images.
Additionally, it doesn't have the same forward compatibility as normal file formats do. Some years down the line, you may not be able to open your RAWs if you've lost your software and whoever supported it or made it has given up. That's just ridiculous to risk, when you can store the same info in a common format that definitely will be supported in years, like DNG or tiff.

For real quality that you actually will ever notice and care about as a non-paranoid person, save in either:
* jpeg with a low amount of lossiness ("quality 10-12" or whatever) - Do this if you're done editing and don't plan on going back and doing any more editing later. It has the highest compression and does so in a way that is best tailored to the human perceptual system (it compresses more where people won't notice it, thus most efficiently saving space without losing any real quality).
* or a 24 bit PNG perhaps (if saving directly from a RAW that was never converted in between into jpeg or edited in 8 bits in photoshop, etc.) - Do this if you might still edit stuff later and still want more bit depth than the human eye can detect.
* DNG accomplishes the same thing as 24 bit PNG, but might be smaller files in some cases or more convenient for some people's work flow (since there's a nice adobe program that converts whole folders eaily with no fuss).
* or TIFF is okay if you really want or if a client requests it, but it isn't anything magical. It doesn't add quality. It just acts as a wrapper for holding more types of information (like vectors and crap), and it is a standardized container that some printing industry types prefer since it agglomerates many types of formats together conveniently. If you don't actually have any vectors or transparencies or weird stuff, though, it's probably mostly a waste of space.

 

[Gavjenks]

......If Canon 3rd generation RAW for XYZ specific cameras is no longer supported, then it just goes poof........... .

Incorrect. If a specific file format is no longer supported, it does NOT just 'go poof'. If Canon folded up and closed their doors tomorrow, you really think everyone's software is going to suddenly stop working? If Nikon goes under next week, I'll bet ya dollars to doughnuts my CNX2 will still launch. And Raw Therapee. And UFRaw.

How many people are still editing their .CRWs?


Please stop playing Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.

No your software wont stop working suddenly. BUT you may be forced to not update to new editing software or a new operating system or a new computer for instance until you convert everything over. If your computer happens to be near the end of its life when companies stop supporting the raw, then this can be a major inconvenience and if it fails you may lose access to your images until you go through the hassle and possibly expense of finding or renting old compatible equipment or installing emulators or whatever.

Also even if that doesnt happen you still have to convert your images more often. Even if its not time pressured, raw formats simply obviously will not be supported as long on average as jpegs or tiff or png.

Additionally, raw software is usually not retroactively updated for old versions of photoshop. So for instance my photoshop cant edit canon 6D raw files because its too new and they changed the format a bit. So even though im happy with my software, id have to fork over additional cash needlessly to work with the raw, for a new photoshop I dont want. If I use DNG or tiff though then old versions are still usable long ling after the fact for future gen cameras. This can be a significant savings.

And again there is not any actualADVANTAGE to raw that anybody has stated so far afaik. So why use it for storage?

 

[Gavjenks]

Additionally, if jpeg or tiff or png were to ever go out of favor, there would inevitably be dozens or hundreds of free, effective programs people would make to convert batches of files to the new format quickly and easily. Because billions of people use jpeg.

Whereas whenever some esoteric RAW format (used by thousands or people only) goes out of favor, you may not have any easy solution, and may end up being forced to go change each file over individually, or write your own software if you know how, or what have you. Either way, you're wasting a lot more time comparatively.

 

[KmH]

Digital Negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exploitation of the file format is royalty-free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG,[SUP][4][/SUP] and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.[SUP][5][/SUP] Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea.[SUP][6][/SUP] Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP

 

[tecboy]

No one knows what the future holds, unless you are clairvoyance. If canon dlsr shoot dng, then I'll shoot dng. For now, I'm shooting raw. Canon has no interested in supporting dng. It is like Y2K all over again! End of the world BS! Religious hysteria! DNG started in 2004, and now photographers still shooting raw. There is no sign of raw is declining. I'm not going to export all my raw files to dng since the beginning of times and reprocess every dng file. If raw really declining in the future, some smart guys will find a way to make several programs to make our lives easier. Such as software that helps convert all your old raw files to dng and reprocess automatically with a touch of one mouse click. Having dng and raw files in my hard drive just make me very confusing for me to organize.

 

[Buckster]

No one knows what the future holds, unless you are clairvoyance. If canon dlsr shoot dng, then I'll shoot dng. For now, I'm shooting raw. Canon has no interested in supporting dng. It is like Y2K all over again! End of the world BS! Religious hysteria! DNG started in 2004, and now photographers still shooting raw. There is no sign of raw is declining. I'm not going to export all my raw files to dng since the beginning of times and reprocess every dng file. If raw really declining in the future, some smart guys will find a way to make several programs to make our lives easier. Such as software that helps convert all your old raw files to dng and reprocess automatically with a touch of one mouse click. Having dng and raw files in my hard drive just make me very confusing for me to organize.

Agreed. As Sparky said, the sky is not falling.

Some folks apparently don't understand what the words "backward compatibility" mean, confusing the fact that future file formats won't necessarily be supported by today's software (because today's software can't predict what's coming in the future - duh) with the fact that future software will continue to support today's formats. And since they always have, and still do, and not a single image format that we know of from the past can NOT be opened and dealt with today to edit or convert to our heart's content, there's no Chicken Little reason to think such a problem is just around the bend.

 

[Gavjenks]

If canon dlsr shoot dng, then I'll shoot dng. For now, I'm shooting raw.

This has nothing to do with what you shoot in. I'm talking about storage for long term. Shoot whatever RAW or DNG your camera supports and you feel like, that doesn't matter. What probably will matter is the format you KEEP it in, which should be one of the common, standardized formats, not one of the RAW formats.

There is no sign of raw is declining.

Yes there is. It's happening constantly.

RAW formats DO lose technical support on an ongoing basis all the time. Or the reverse: new RAWs are only supported on new software.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I bought my Canon 6D a while back, I was unable to open or edit its RAW files in photoshop CS5. I was always able to do this with my T2i RAW files. They apparently change their RAW formats every couple of years as new bodies roll out with new features and metadata, etc. In other words: in the course of just 1 or 2 versions of each type of software, photoshop and Canon RAW already became incompatible with each other.

As a result, the only way I can do editing of my photos with their full RAW bit depth is to first convert to DNG or some other more standard format, then open it in CS5, which is supported. I'm sure as hell not updating to photoshop's cloud service when I have a version that's free for me to use and owned permanently.

Just one of many possible examples of how inability to conveniently open or manipulate RAW files for specific cameras makes them inferior for storage or usage for me compared to common files that can be opened anywhere.

If raw really declining in the future, some smart guys will find a way to make several programs to make our lives easier.

Yes. Those smart guys are called "Adobe" and the program they have made to make your life easier is their DNG converter. Or alternatively, lightroom or photoshop for converting to other more common options like PNG or TIFF.

Using those existing services to move away from the mishmash of random, difficult-to-work-with, and pointless-to-keep proprietary RAW formats and toward any of the common standard formats for long term storage will, as you say, make your life easier.

Having dng and raw files in my hard drive just make me very confusing for me to organize.

Why on earth would you ever store RAW and DNG copies at the same time? That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying you should store DNG only, and throw your original RAWs away completely, since they are redundant in terms of information and worse in terms of usability. And even then, only for images you think you might edit again (like for your best images or ones for a client who may have ongoing needs for them). Otherwise, store in 10-12 quality JPEG only.

 

[480sparky]

..........As a result, the only way I can do editing of my photos with their full RAW bit depth is to first convert to DNG or some other more standard format, ..............

You certainly have taken a long, long drink of DNG-flavored Kool-Aid.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I work on TIFF Layers in Photoshop to allow for more flexibility in editing.

I keep every original RAW, and the original RAW file is never altered in any way. Lightroom is a parametric editor (non-destructive to the original file).

I'll save the PSD files with TIFF layers, and for right now, maximum quality JPEGs are the final product.

 

[Gavjenks]

Some folks apparently don't understand what the words "backward compatibility" mean, confusing the fact that future file formats won't necessarily be supported by today's software (because today's software can't predict what's coming in the future - duh) with the fact that future software will continue to support today's formats. And since they always have, and still do, and not a single image format that we know of from the past can NOT be opened and dealt with today to edit or convert to our heart's content, there's no Chicken Little reason to think such a problem is just around the bend.

This is just simply not true. The vast majority of image editing programs will not open ANY RAW files from any company at all. Much less every RAW format ever designed.

Adobe products might be backward compatible (I'd like to see some evidence that even they have not missed a single old RAW format of any kind.), but Adobe is not the only editor out there, or the cheapest. Most are neither forward nor backward compatible with RAWs. Whereas almost every single image editing program ever will be compatible with jpeg or PNG, for instance.

it's not just an issue of "is it physically possible SOMEHOW to open my files?" Yes, it probably always will be. But there's also considerations of how much of a pain in the arse it is, how long it will take, how much it will cost, etc. And it will always be more of a pain and either equally or more expensive to work with old RAW formats than to work with jpeg or PNG or TIFF. Since there has so far still not been one mention of an actual advantage of storage in RAW formats as far as I can see in this thread, why risk extra headaches and potential costs and finnicky workarounds later on for no reason?

 

[Crollo]

My Olympus E10 is a decade old. It is truly dinosaur tech with a raw format that nothing supports anymore.
Yet, I simply downloaded the software from olympus' website and I could edit my raw files. It was in fact less difficult to get my olympus E10 up and running than it was to get the software for my Rebel T3 up and running.


​I don't see what your point is.