What's the best file format to save pictures in?

[tedwca]

I just feel the need to point out that .png files are LOSSLESS. It has other drawbacks(no EXIF info, no CMYK, and more) but it is not a lossy file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

JPEG (Joint Photography Experts Group) can produce a smaller file than PNG for photographic (and photo-like) images, since JPEG uses a lossy encoding method specifically designed for photographic image data. Using PNG instead of a high-quality JPEG for such images would result in a large increase in filesize (often 5–10 times) with negligible gain in quality.
PNG is a better choice than JPEG for storing images that contain text, line art, or other images with sharp transitions. Where an image contains both sharp transitions and photographic parts a choice must be made between the large but sharp PNG and a small JPEG with artifacts around sharp transitions. JPEG also does not support transparency.
JPEG is a worse choice for storing images that require further editing as it suffers from generation loss, whereas lossless formats do not. This makes PNG useful for saving temporary photographs that require successive editing. When the photograph is ready to be distributed, it can then be saved as a JPEG, and this limits the information loss to just one generation. That said, PNG does not provide a standard means of embedding Exif image data from sources such as digital cameras, which makes it problematic for use amongst photographers, especially professionals. TIFF does support it as a lossless format.

That said I save as .PSD files most of the time, as well as keeping the original RAW file.

[boristhemoggy]

Originally Posted by Douglas

After reading this thread, I have come to a conclusion.

What's the best file format to save pictures in?

Whichever one you want. They are all viable. You want tiff? great! Jpg? Swell! Raw? Good for you! Any one or all 3? Awesome!

Of cusre that is always the answer. The good thing is in listening to everyone's viewpoints so that we can come to our own answered with information, and not in ignorance.
My decision is to save RAW files but no JPG's, only producing a JPG when someone wants a copy.
I appreciate all the effort people put in to help those whose experience and knowledge is more limited.

[jayavant]

Since I shoot film pretty much exclusively my situation is quite different as I always have the negatives and transparencies as back-ups. However, I scan and save my resultant images as TIFF's. I export JPEG's from Lightroom for online display. I shoot mostly large and medium format and some of my TIFF's are very large - up to 2 gig. I am wondering about converting these to Adobe's DNG format to save a bit of space. Any comments?

[Ben_V]

Originally Posted by jayavant

Since I shoot film pretty much exclusively my situation is quite different as I always have the negatives and transparencies as back-ups. However, I scan and save my resultant images as TIFF's. I export JPEG's from Lightroom for online display. I shoot mostly large and medium format and some of my TIFF's are very large - up to 2 gig. I am wondering about converting these to Adobe's DNG format to save a bit of space. Any comments?

DNG shouldn't be necessary, as you could also simply use a com pressed TIFF. Assuming you use Photoshop, it offers different TIFF compressions (RLE, LZW and ZIP). I usually use LZW, but you could simply try with a few sample files, which format works best for you. of course these compressions are all lossless.

Ben

[jayavant]

Thanks Ben. That makes good sense. Yes I use Photoshop (CS4). I'll check out the compressed TIFF's...

[fothagrafir]

Well thanks for your in-put...I as a learner or student or observer I gain from respectful watching and not useless asking. I do suggest that you scrap those "smilies" ..it's for idiots!!!

[Rain Lily]

Originally Posted by fothagrafir

Well thanks for your in-put...I as a learner or student or observer I gain from respectful watching and not useless asking. I do suggest that you scrap those "smilies" ..it's for idiots!!!

[transcape5]

Originally Posted by fothagrafir

Well thanks for your in-put...I as a learner or student or observer I gain from respectful watching and not useless asking. I do suggest that you scrap those "smilies" ..it's for idiots!!!

Everything you said up to the idiots part sounded real good. Did you mean that part as a joke - I can't tell without the smilies? Perhaps you meant to say "not useless watching and respectful asking".

[edk]

A good workflow practice, is to shoot RAW and archive in DNG. DNG is a good cross platform lossless standard, RAW, you just shouldn't shoot in anything else, you just loose too much data.

As for other formats, JPG and PNG is always good for web work, TIFF is good for PP work, but if you have PS then you can't beat PSD files; these formats will really be dependant on the applications you use.

[Carusoswi]

I'm not certain what all this talk about files degrading over time is supposed to mean. My understanding is that any degradation takes place during manipulation. If you convert a RAW file to a jpg, then manipulate the jpg and save it, there is some data loss. At that point, loss stops until you open the file and manipulate again (not certain why you would do this unless you were putting the file to some new and different use). Obviously, if you save this 2nd manipulation by overwriting the original jpg, you will experience a second generation of degradation. But, you could save that second manipulation to a new file (original file_a for want of anything more creative), and the first generation jpg remains intact.

If all you do after saving to jpg is to open and close the file for viewing, and you do not make further manipulations, then closing the file should not prompt an offer to save again, and there should be absolutely no change in the file, no matter how often you open and close the file.

To suggest that the mere opening and closing of the file will cause degradation is sort of like saying that a word document will degrade over time if you open it for reading, then close it, open it, close it, etc.

As far as your archival file type becoming so obsolete that there might remain no machine capable of reading your files, you'd have to be like Rip Van Winkle, I think, in order for this to actually happen. I would think that we or our offspring or those collegues who follow us will be aware as file types begin to change and would see the need to convert data archived in file types in danger of becoming obsolete. It's not likely to happen in a blink of an eye.

Just my thoughts.

Caruso

[Ben_V]

Originally Posted by Carusoswi

I'm not certain what all this talk about files degrading over time is supposed to mean. My understanding is that any degradation takes place during manipulation. If you convert a RAW file to a jpg, then manipulate the jpg and save it, there is some data loss. At that point, loss stops until you open the file and manipulate again (not certain why you would do this unless you were putting the file to some new and different use). Obviously, if you save this 2nd manipulation by overwriting the original jpg, you will experience a second generation of degradation. But, you could save that second manipulation to a new file (original file_a for want of anything more creative), and the first generation jpg remains intact.

If all you do after saving to jpg is to open and close the file for viewing, and you do not make further manipulations, then closing the file should not prompt an offer to save again, and there should be absolutely no change in the file, no matter how often you open and close the file.

To suggest that the mere opening and closing of the file will cause degradation is sort of like saying that a word document will degrade over time if you open it for reading, then close it, open it, close it, etc.

As far as your archival file type becoming so obsolete that there might remain no machine capable of reading your files, you'd have to be like Rip Van Winkle, I think, in order for this to actually happen. I would think that we or our offspring or those collegues who follow us will be aware as file types begin to change and would see the need to convert data archived in file types in danger of becoming obsolete. It's not likely to happen in a blink of an eye.

Hi Caruso. You are completely correct about the non-degradation by simple viewing. Only re-saving will lead to further loss of detail.

With regards to the future-proof of file formats, you are also correct, IF and only IF, you regularily transfer all files to more current storage media (I still have loads of Syquest media, but no drive for them, anymore...), controle the actual status of these media (CDs are of widely varying storage longevity) and also change file formats, if need arises.

But who is really doing this? And what about our kids in twenty years? Will they keep migrating the data? If not, they still may go through the pages of the photo albums of their great-grandparents, but will have lost all images of their own childhood.

Even a damaged analogue print with scratches and discolourings will bring back emotions and moods. But a damaged or unreadable digital file is useless.

Ben

[Carusoswi]

I sit here today rescanning a shopping bag full of 35 mm negatives. They are already digitized on my system, but only as 8-bit files. I'm rescanning everything to 16-bits.

I could be wrong, but I doubt future developers will ignore the needs of those of us who need to retrieve 16-bit tiff files in order to transfer them to some new format. Unfortunately, when the means becomes available for me to scan my negs in 16,000 bits, it is likely that my negs will either be too degraded or not readable by current media - - but I'm putting my money on the assumption that my 16-bit scans of those negs will remain accessible in that 'far-off' day.

I cannot remember the time when I last actually used a 5 1/4" floppy, but I could still wrestle up some concoction to read a disc if necessary. I still have a USB 3 1/2" floppy drive or two to copy the occasional 'mini' disc if the need arises.

I still digitize 78 RPM audio recordings along with more modern vinyl audio discs.

So, I'm guessing that, although progress proceeds rapidfire, backwards compatibility remains for those of us who have media stored on aging storage systems.

Caruso

[kidnanrud]

Originally Posted by Carusoswi

I sit here today rescanning a shopping bag full of 35 mm negatives. They are already digitized on my system, but only as 8-bit files. I'm rescanning everything to 16-bits.

I could be wrong, but I doubt future developers will ignore the needs of those of us who need to retrieve 16-bit tiff files in order to transfer them to some new format. Unfortunately, when the means becomes available for me to scan my negs in 16,000 bits, it is likely that my negs will either be too degraded or not readable by current media - - but I'm putting my money on the assumption that my 16-bit scans of those negs will remain accessible in that 'far-off' day.

I cannot remember the time when I last actually used a 5 1/4" floppy, but I could still wrestle up some concoction to read a disc if necessary. I still have a USB 3 1/2" floppy drive or two to copy the occasional 'mini' disc if the need arises.

I still digitize 78 RPM audio recordings along with more modern vinyl audio discs.

So, I'm guessing that, although progress proceeds rapidfire, backwards compatibility remains for those of us who have media stored on aging storage systems.

Caruso

Do you have any 331/3 records? How about tapes? If so, what do you have that will transfer them to digital music files? Yeah, I don't either. So that makes me think that we may end up with the same problem with pictures on any stored format. I didn't transfer all my parents music files when I could have so I doubt my children will be any more diligent with our family pictures. It is not the .tiff or .png or .jpg format that is the problem. It is the media upon which it is recorded. IMHO
kidnanrud

[Carusoswi]

Originally Posted by kidnanrud

Do you have any 331/3 records? How about tapes? If so, what do you have that will transfer them to digital music files? Yeah, I don't either. So that makes me think that we may end up with the same problem with pictures on any stored format. I didn't transfer all my parents music files when I could have so I doubt my children will be any more diligent with our family pictures. It is not the .tiff or .png or .jpg format that is the problem. It is the media upon which it is recorded. IMHO
kidnanrud

LOL, actually, (and, of course, part of this isn't anything to laugh about), I had to move my mother out of her farm house, sell the farm, and move her into assisted living a couple of years ago (she has since passed from complications of Alzheimer's), but, in the process, we rescued stacks of 78 RPM discs - we left the player, although it was still functioning. I own what I consider final generation state of the 'consumer' art turntables (stuff that works and gives good audible results, none of that $10,000 glitz) that will play 33 1/3 and 45 rpm vinyl. For 78's, I either play them on an old Gerrard (spelling?) or take them to my son's place. We bought for his birthday last year a new turntable that will play 33's, 45's, and even 78's with purchase of a special stylus. That unit is readily availabe for purchase online today, and it isn't expensive (less than $200 if I recall).

I own a huge collection of vinyl records, and when my kids were enrolled at Juilliard, they snapped up tons of old vinyl that was being replaced or had been archived or was just old and being let go. The stuff is well used, but was always played on good equipment by serious musicians who likely treated the recordings with care. None of it is in bad condition - but back to my collection, I never played the vinyl often since I preferred to dub it onto reel to reel tapes and play it from there (easier to replace tape heads once a decade than replace worn records). I still have those tapes, my tape machines, and all my records.

Some of my most prized vinyl records came with defects right out of the sleeve. What's interesting is that most of what I have can now be downloaded from the internet, so, for a modest fee, I've replaced some of those priceless but flawed recordings with flawless versions downloaded from the 'net.

If you are stuck with music in formats that you can't play, I bet you wouldn't have to search hard to find someone with equipment that will play them so that you could dub them to another format.

Caruso