Is there any disadvantage to saving TIFFs in 8bit instead of 16bit?

[Dinarius]

The question is in the title.

And, while I can get many answers to the benefits of editing in 16bit (banding, colour range, etc.), I can find no answer to my question regarding saving TIFFs.

Thanks.

D.

[kers]

The question is in the title.

And, while I can get many answers to the benefits of editing in 16bit (banding, colour range, etc.), I can find no answer to my question regarding saving TIFFs.

Thanks.

D.

Well in 16 bit you have more information about the image. As an end product for printing 8 bit will do fine. Information is also the amount of pixels and the colourspace.
I always keep my photos as flat 16 bit prophoto as large as possible after they are ready.
In that way i can still change them in future without any penalty. If you use prophoto colour space it is also advised to keep them 16 bit because of the enormous size of that colorspace.
data storage is very cheap nowadays and even the harddisks get smaller...

[Dinarius]

Thanks.

Both Metamorfoze and FADGI advocate 16bit as archival standard without stating, as far as I can see, why it's better than 8bit.

And I totally agree that the cost of storage now makes the question redundant. I just thought I'd ask!  :)d

D.

[digitaldog]

The advantages would be any further editing of that data. So, for example, you had a TIFF with output-specific edits based on a soft proof to a fixed output need no; you're not going to edit that iteration again, 8 bits per color is acceptable for all output needs (yes, even to print).
Master, layered data: Keep high bit. Here's why:
http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

[Dinarius]

The advantages would be any further editing of that data. So, for example, you had a TIFF with output-specific edits based on a soft proof to a fixed output need no; you're not going to edit that iteration again, 8 bits per color is acceptable for all output needs (yes, even to print).
Master, layered data: Keep high bit. Here's why:
http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

Thanks!

D.

[bellevuefineart]

In my experience there often is not a good reason to keep images in 16 bit. It depends on the image, but in most cases there is no color information in the added bit depth to justify the added storage needs. There are times we keep images 16 bit, if we can see that image information requires it. The thing is, it's not an issue of the image having more color, but more gradient color, especially in a single color range.

For example, an image that has a lot of gradient sky may benefit from remaining 16 bit. Large swaths of gradient sky, especially, can benefit from remaining 16 bit. So some photography with large swaths of subtle gradient can benefit from a higher bit depth. Some paintings that have a lot of subtle gradient across large areas may benefit from 16 bit files. But in most cases we will reduce an image to 8bit after we're finished editing it.

[Jonathan Cross]

Am I being thick but, for me, I see no reason to save images as TIFF. I use LR Classic and do not print from another machine. I obviously back up images and LR, so can always return for further editing, on a copy if appropriate, and then reprint.
Jonathan

[digitaldog]

Am I being thick but, for me, I see no reason to save images as TIFF. I use LR Classic and do not print from another machine. I obviously back up images and LR, so can always return for further editing, on a copy if appropriate, and then reprint.
Jonathan

IF 100% of your captures are raw and 100% of your processing and viewing/printing of images are in Lightroom Classic, you don't need a TIFF or anything else but that raw.

[Jeff Magidson]

IF 100% of your captures are raw and 100% of your processing and viewing/printing of images are in Lightroom Classic, you don't need a TIFF or anything else but that raw.

However, if your images ONLY exist as RAW in Lightroom you are subject to the whims of a change in the Camera Raw pipeline and Process Versions. Once you've developed/edited a file It's a good practice to output the a PSD or Tiff to lock in your image permanently. Another good reason to output a PSD or Tiff is just incase your LR catalog gets corrupted especially if you're not also saving sidecar .xmp files. You COULD lose years of processing work.

[digitaldog]

However, if your images ONLY exist as RAW in Lightroom you are subject to the whims of a change in the Camera Raw pipeline and Process Versions.

You can decide to honor (or not), any PV. I could take an image shot today on a year-old camera and select PV1 (I wouldn't, but I could).
You could take a raw with PV3, make a virtual copy and set it to PV6, and have both.
There are no such whims. You control the process.
Catalogs getting corrupted (rare, never happened for me since before the first version was released and hundreds of beta's) without having multiple backups, no different from TIFFs getting corrupted. Practice safe computing.
Oh and sidecar XMPs? NO need, embed it all in a DNG.

[Jeff Magidson]

There are no such whims. You control the process.

If I recall correctly, there have been times when ADOBE has changed the processing pipeline within the same Process Version via an update, affecting how your image looks.

[digitaldog]

If I recall correctly, there have been times when ADOBE has changed the processing pipeline within the same Process Version via an update, affecting how your image looks.

Nope. The very reason PVs exist is to counter that happening.