Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: mbalensiefer on February 08, 2011, 03:21:47 am
-
I reedit my images over time.
Having held them in .jpg (at a Photoshop quality setting of 9); after two saves in smaller files one can notice the difference.
I have been saving my smallest images in PNG format hoping to save them from undue artifacting...but even this is "two" damaging procedures (one save from .jpeg into PNG , then later from PNG back to .jpeg), as eventually I will export my images into the Web.
Is anyone saving their files in a different format?
Thank you!
Michael
-
I reedit my images over time.
Having held them in .jpg (at a Photoshop quality setting of 9); after two saves in smaller files one can notice the difference.
I have been saving my smallest images in PNG format hoping to save them from undue artifacting...but even this is "two" damaging procedures (one save from .jpeg into PNG , then later from PNG back to .jpeg), as eventually I will export my images into the Web.
Is anyone saving their files in a different format?
Thank you!
Michael
TIFF.
Jeremy
-
Is Tiff better in any way than PNG, however?
Web professionals seem to use PNG for ads, etc...but shy away from .tiff.
I did an experiment, saving my old .jpeg into both a Tiff and a PNG.
...
TYPE FILESIZE
original jpg = 552k
tiff saved as jpg option (?) = 604k
tiff = 10.7m
png interlaced = 4.7m
png = 3.54m
as a side note, saving a file into PNG takes a looong time in Photoshop, without fail. Even if I start from a PNG and then save o a PNG. Saving in Tif, a larger file format, is quite fast. I wonder why this is.
-
Shoot in RAW. Edit in 16-bit. Archive your finished work as 16-bit TIFF but keep the RAWs as well. If you need to re-edit, go back to the RAW.
At this moment in time, there are no better options, IMO.
John
-
Hello.
I am saving my jpegs at a bit depth of 24.
Why would I want the Tiff file format over PNG, however, when Tiff is three times the size?
Also, why would I want to save at a bit depth of below 24--and, concerning this, where in Photoshop can I change this option? Native Photoshop "saves" of Tiff files appear to be 24 bits.
Thank you for all your input!
Michael
-
tiff is 16 bit per channel, jpeg is only 8 bit per channel (24 bit total)
-
Tiff can be saved as 8 or 16 bits per channel (i.e. 24 bit or 48 bit rgb files). I think the standard also allows saving of 32 bit per channel files, but am not sure.
You want to save as TIFF because it is a lossless format - i.e. you can open and resave without any loss of data. Data losses occur when the jpeg algorithm compresses the data file into a smaller space at each save. As the compression uses a lossy algorithm more information is lost at each save until the losses become visible. The losses are irrecoverable.
Shoot raw, process into tiffs for prints/archive (don't delete the raws) and use jpgs for final web display.
Best
Mike
-
Hello.
I am saving my jpegs at a bit depth of 24.
Why would I want the Tiff file format over PNG, however, when Tiff is three times the size?
Also, why would I want to save at a bit depth of below 24--and, concerning this, where in Photoshop can I change this option? Native Photoshop "saves" of Tiff files appear to be 24 bits.
Thank you for all your input!
Michael
As previous poster said, 24 bit depth is 8 bits per channel. 16 bit per channel would be 48 bit depth
Why Tiff instead of PNG? Because PNG is not fully supported by Adobe applications and other digital imaging software.
Lightroom does not handle PNG. Photoshop (at least up to version CS3) will let you save PNG, but it will flatten your file, so you cannot save a multilayered or multichannel file.
The only drawback of tiff is file size, but as storage space becomes cheaper, is not a big deal
The increased time it takes to store a PNG is due to the extra processing it requires.
To change from 8 bits to 16 bits (per channel) or viceversa, in Photoshop go to Image> Mode> 8bits (or 16 bits).
A final note, quality can be reduced but not increased. If you start with a 8bit JPeg, you gain nothing converting to 16bit Tiff. It is only when you start with a Raw file or a 16 bit Tiff that it makes sense to stay 16bit tiff
-
Why is your jpeg so small at 552kb? You have been throwing away a ton of data.
John Smith covers it all. Shoot raw and save to tiff.
Jpegs have their place. I would say anything that you never plan on printing could be shot in Jpeg.
If your printing shoot in raw.
If you keep shooting jpeg's at least keep them full size.
-
I reedit my images over time.
Having held them in .jpg ...
Is anyone saving their files in a different format?
You could metadata-edit the original JPGs via Bridge + ACR (as well).
So it is still the unaltered image data, although it does not seem to be possible to have the settings in an extra xmp sidecar e.g. when the JPG is locked.
Anyway, for any Save out, I'd recommend to create a separate file.
Peter
--
-
I reedit my images over time.
Having held them in .jpg (at a Photoshop quality setting of 9); after two saves in smaller files one can notice the difference.
I have been saving my smallest images in PNG format hoping to save them from undue artifacting...but even this is "two" damaging procedures (one save from .jpeg into PNG , then later from PNG back to .jpeg), as eventually I will export my images into the Web.
Is anyone saving their files in a different format?
Thank you!
Michael
Buy more storage (it's cheap these days) and save your JPG files as TIFF or shoot in RAW.
-
If you are editing your files in PS, I would encourage the use of layers: keep the original image as the bottom layer, and then add editions as adjustment layers or masked layers; then, always save this file using PS's native format. This way, you can reopen that file later and tweak your modifications, no need to redo all the editing again.
-
A final note, quality can be reduced but not increased. If you start with a 8bit JPeg, you gain nothing converting to 16bit Tiff. It is only when you start with a Raw file or a 16 bit Tiff that it makes sense to stay 16bit tiff
The first sentence is, obviously, correct. The second and third aren't, for reasons which have been discussed in another thread (whose location esacpes me at the moment).
If you perform editing actions which require interpolation of any kind, you will benefit from performing the edit in 16-bit space even if you start from an 8-bit file as the rounding errors will be reduced.
Jeremy
-
The first sentence is, obviously, correct. The second and third aren't, for reasons which have been discussed in another thread (whose location esacpes me at the moment).
If you perform editing actions which require interpolation of any kind, you will benefit from performing the edit in 16-bit space even if you start from an 8-bit file as the rounding errors will be reduced.
Jeremy
I think this is the one your refering too Jeremy?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50081.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50081.0)
-
The first sentence is, obviously, correct. The second and third aren't, for reasons which have been discussed in another thread (whose location esacpes me at the moment).
If you perform editing actions which require interpolation of any kind, you will benefit from performing the edit in 16-bit space even if you start from an 8-bit file as the rounding errors will be reduced.
Jeremy
Ok, I agree with your observation. Anyway, probably "quality" is a broad term. You could benefit from editing in 16 bits an original 8 bit file to avoid banding, like it was shown in the referred thread, but you would not increase effective bit depth (also mentioned in that thread).
Additionally, any details that you could have lost when generating the original jpeg are irrecoverable.
-
Shoot in RAW. Edit in 16-bit. Archive your finished work as 16-bit TIFF but keep the RAWs as well. If you need to re-edit, go back to the RAW.
At this moment in time, there are no better options, IMO.
Yes there is one : shoot in raw and use Lightroom not to fuss with obese tiff files... ;)
Works with jpegs as well (even if it is not the best place to start).
-
I have the option in Photoshop, when saving in Tiff, to save as Tiff in four different file types.
(none, lzw, zip, and .jpeg).
My Tiff (saved as .jpeg) save is 63% the size of my Tiff file (normal).
I take it that this Tiff is actually a jpeg file?
...
Also; if I DO save my work in layers...is it better to save in Tiff or PSD?
:O
Michael
-
Hi! Is it better to save layered work in Tiff or PSD?
-
Hi! Is it better to save layered work in Tiff or PSD?
I think conventional wisdom would now say TIFF, as it's not proprietary and holds all necessary information.
Jeremy
-
As far as I understand it, the Tiff format is a "container" for the actual image data. The container holds metadata about the image, the image itself can be stored in many (any?) formats, including jpeg. A Tiff containing a jpg has the same characteristics regarding lossy compression etc. as a "naked" jpg.
I have the option in Photoshop, when saving in Tiff, to save as Tiff in four different file types.
(none, lzw, zip, and .jpeg).
My Tiff (saved as .jpeg) save is 63% the size of my Tiff file (normal).
I take it that this Tiff is actually a jpeg file?
...
Also; if I DO save my work in layers...is it better to save in Tiff or PSD?
:O
Michael
-
When I save files as Tiff, I get the Photoshop options to Save Image Pyramid (default position: off)
--> Do I ever save in Image Pyramid?
I also have the option to save Pixel order in:
Interleaved (RGBRGB)
Per Channel (RRGGBB)
--> Which one is optimal, and why?
Thank you again!
Mike
-
Each time you save a file at 9 jpg you are effectively compressing the file by 1 so yes you are degrading it and it accumulates. It doesn't just stay at 9.
Save in TIF.
Layered PSD's take longer to save and open.
The only time I save a jpg is for web and email. Or if a client specifically needs it.
-
I am currently using PS5 and saving as TIFF files.
If one uses a product such as LightRoom, my understanding is that it saves only instructions on how to process the RAW file, not the actual changes. Therefore, a image saved in LightRoom would be very small compared to a TIFF file since one is only saving processing instructions, not the actual image. Correct? Of course, then, one must have LightRoom to duplicate the modified image later, correct?
-
I am wondering why not just to save as a PSD? I doubt that the format is going anywhere in the near future...or the intermediate future, not sure about the distant future, of course.... And can't any photo application worth using read PSDs now anyway? Like I said, just wondering.
-
I know that PSD images do not carry thumbnail information viewable in native Windows. That is one detraction.
Tifs have viewable thumbnails.
Tifs load faster into Photoshop than PSDs do, as well. Go figure.
-
Most people would accept that for the best results: shoot raw, edit in LR or C1 and output in profoto, 16bit, tiff for further work (if necessary) in PS. When you have finished the image, if you have worked further on it in another program, save the master in 16bit profoto tiff. If you complete the image in LR or C1, there's no need to save it outside those programs as they retain all the work you have done and you can output it in whatever format suits your needs at the time. Of course, you should save backups of the raws and the LR of C1 info files!
-
I would say EPS, so that it would not blur even if you zoom it to the highest level. It would cost you some space though as compared to your regular jpeg, png and tiff but it would definitely be worth it for important shots.
-
I would say EPS, so that it would not blur even if you zoom it to the highest level. It would cost you some space though as compared to your regular jpeg, png and tiff but it would definitely be worth it for important shots.
Err, no.
EPS is for vector based artwork like text and graphics, and has nothing to do with scaling up pixel based or rasterised images. Scale an image and it will pixelate regardless of the file format.
Best practice for the OP is to stick to raw and use Lightroom or Aperture. Then you don't really need either tiffs or jpegs except as a delivery format for clients or web. Jpegs make a perfect delivery format, just don't edit them or anything else. If you need to use the subtle tools of Photoshop then 16 bit tiff or psd is the correct format to use and then save. Worrying about file size is pointless, just buy a bigger HD, $70 for 1TB covers a lot of images.
-
Michael,
For storing and reediting purposes, keep your images in PSD or in the compressed TIFF file format.
For publishing, PNG is a good alternative to JPEG because it does not lose its quality after resaving.