Tiff or DNG

[rgs]

Commerically made scans of film (chrome) are usually returned to me as JPEGs. LR 2 will save them as either tiff or DNG. I am not sure which to use for my master copy. I am interested in opinions of this forum. I think the DNGs are slightly smaller. I believe both are formats that do not lose data. Comments?

RGS

[Eyeball]

RGS,

Excuse me if I'm stating the obvious but if the lab is sending you Jpegs, then you're not going to get any better quality than that and probably not any better file compression either so there is no reason that those can't serve as your true masters.

Now if you're making edits in Lightroom and you want to save those as a "secondary" master, then that's something else:

- If you want the most "standard", weirdness-proof, and compatible file, I would go with TIFF.
- If you keep your original Jpegs as your primary masters (and I suggest you should), then you might accept the slight risk vs filesize trade-off and go with DNG.  The DNG can actually contain your original Jpeg plus the non-destructive LR edits.
- An alternative similar to DNG but different that LR allows is to edit a Jpeg directly.  LR will store the non-destructive edits inside the Jpeg.  I personally would not use my Jpeg originals, however.  I would use Jpeg copies.

For that last two alternatives, be aware that not all editing/viewing apps will read DNGs (and some raw converters that will read camera DNGs will not read Adobe-created DNGs) and non-Adobe apps will ignore LR edits that have been embedded in a Jpeg.

Here are interesting some blog posts from John Nack at Adobe if you haven't already ran across them:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/02/nondestructive.html

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/03/converting_jpeg.html

[rgs]

Good post. Thank you. No, I'm not expecting to improve quality, at least not until I buy a scanner capable of better work without spending lots of money per chrome. The original jpeg scans are saved on CD. I'm looking for a consistent way to leave a master on my computer to serve as a base for various edits and purposes without seeing data decay as they are used. I do not expect these masters to ever see any software except LR or PS.

RGS

[digitaldog]

Two points. One is, why on earth are they providing you scans as JPEG? That's insane. You want full bit depth (16-bit) scans.

DNG is not really an appropriate file format for rendered (RGB pixel based) files. Its really a better container for Raw files, hence the name. Ask for 16-bit TIFFs with the scanner profile embedded, not some RGB working space, then you KNOW they've profiled the scanner and are giving you the highest quality original data.

[Panopeeper]

I think the DNGs are slightly smaller.

TIFF is a general format, DNG is not. It is based on TIFF, with additions and restrictions. One of the restrictions is related to the compression method: you have no choice between different methods, while pure TIFF offers several methods.

Beside, nothing in your file exhibits anything justifying converting it in DNG format.

[rgs]

Two points. One is, why on earth are they providing you scans as JPEG? That's insane. You want full bit depth (16-bit) scans.

I agree. Unfortunately getting reliable high resolution tiff scans in my city is a problem. Just to get a tiff of the same resolution as a basic automated jpeg costs twice as much.  Much of my film work is 6x7 so good scans are a challenge. I'm sending a bit of the more serious work at a time out but I need to get a good scanner of my own.

Lab work in my town has really dried up. There is only one lab in town that will process E-6 and they won't do any push processing. That lab is in a camera store. That's also where the unreliable scans are coming from. Most of the pro labs have closed. My favorite color printer used to run his own lab. The guy is a genius in a darkroom. He is now working for an Indian Casino. This is not a small town but the business here has really changed. All of my pro work is now digital and is printed out of town. I no longer shoot 35mm (I never liked it much anyway) but still use my 6x7 and would do so more if good scans were not so difficult to get.

Many of the photos I am asking about in this thread are family photos on 35mm color neg. I just want to be able to share them as needed with the family without eroding the original.

RGS

[Nick Rains]

I agree. Unfortunately getting reliable high resolution tiff scans in my city is a problem. Just to get a tiff of the same resolution as a basic automated jpeg costs twice as much.  Much of my film work is 6x7 so good scans are a challenge. I'm sending a bit of the more serious work at a time out but I need to get a good scanner of my own.

Lab work in my town has really dried up. There is only one lab in town that will process E-6 and they won't do any push processing. That lab is in a camera store. That's also where the unreliable scans are coming from. Most of the pro labs have closed. My favorite color printer used to run his own lab. The guy is a genius in a darkroom. He is now working for an Indian Casino. This is not a small town but the business here has really changed. All of my pro work is now digital and is printed out of town. I no longer shoot 35mm (I never liked it much anyway) but still use my 6x7 and would do so more if good scans were not so difficult to get.

Many of the photos I am asking about in this thread are family photos on 35mm color neg. I just want to be able to share them as needed with the family without eroding the original.

RGS

I'd be looking for a Nikon LS4000 or similar on Ebay. Sell it when you have finished scanning and all those scans will have cost you very little.

[rgs]

I'd be looking for a Nikon LS4000 or similar on Ebay. Sell it when you have finished scanning and all those scans will have cost you very little.

That would be a good suggestion for the 35mm. However I also have a large number of 6x7 chromes (and some 4x5s also) that need good scans. I also have a large number of 4x5 black & white that I might also scan. I expect to get an Epson V700 before long. Everything I've read about it is that it is nearly as good as a film scanner for 35 and really great with larger formats.

RGS

[Hening Bettermann]

digitalcopy24.de offers Imacon scans at very low prices. I have not really explored mine yet, but they looked good at first glance. Could be worth a try.

[Ken Bennett]

I expect to get an Epson V700 before long. Everything I've read about it is that it is nearly as good as a film scanner for 35 and really great with larger formats.

This was going to be my suggestion.