What format to save my pictures in?

[erics500d]

Hello!

Ever since I started to take pictures in raw I´ve converted them and saved them in jpg. But I know a lot of people save them in tiff etc. Why? What is the reason? I know that you won´t loss any data by saving it in tiff, but when do/can you use tiff. Will my photos get better if I save them in tiff and maybe in 16 bit colours too? I use a HP pavilion dv6 and I print my photos with my Canon mp640.

Just say why/why not saving in tiff(or other formats) instead or in addition to jpg!

[KeithT]

It depends on what your intentions are. For archiving you can save a TIFF,or if needs must you can tweak them again as non-lossy files without resorting all the way back to the raw file. I usually save TIFF's sized for printing at around 300ppi at 49/50mb, and mirror them over two external harddrives. I also save my favourite portfolios to disc. I make jpeg copies from the TIFF at 72 ppi and 1000 pix long edge - about 5mb each - for uploading to the Internet. I have route directories set up for the various folders I create by date. I use the TIFF files as the basis for any other file I want to make as and when needed.

If you use Photoshop and work with layers, you can save files with layers as PSD files so that you can use the layers again when re-editing. A good idea to save them as PSD if you want to continue editing at another time.

TIFFS can be very large, especially from my 5dMKII files, so they do need some carefull downsizing before saving and for ease of working with memory wise on my 32 bit computer. It depends, as I say, on what your intentions are for your files as far as printing goes I suppose.

PS. If you intend submitting a disc full of images to some magazines, they do like files to be around the 50mb size, or at least they used to. Whether that still applies these days or not I couldn't say. But it's best to err on the 50mb size than to be too short.

[GeoffWessex]

Just to add that it's PSD files (not PSB) and that TIFF files can also retain editing layers. Both types can also save selections you made while editing (if they're saved while they're in use). It then becomes a question of archiving.... will TIFFs be around longer than PSD format?

Going straight from Raw to Jpeg is a bit like buying a steak, saving the fat and gristle and discarding the red stuff! I think it's best (if the file is worth keeping at all) to keep a quality 'master' version of a file, in PSD or TIFF format. Then you just make different Jpegs for different purposes and different quality/size - email, website, etc.

[KeithT]

Thanks Geoff. Duely corrected. My typing isn't the best in the world...lol

Another quick point, if you are saving a jpeg from a 16 bit TIFF, you will need to change it to 8 bit before you can do it.

[AndyStevens]

I shoot RAW and make initial edits in 16-bit TIFF. Once happy, these are saved as 8-bit TIFF to save on HD space. This maximises image quality and reduces 'combing' in histograms (where 'gaps' start to appear). All TIFFs are kept unsharpened with sharpening applied prior to printing as different print sizes require different amounts of sharpening. I'm also starting to use LightRoom more and will in the future be adopting the 'keep one, print many' attitude direct from LightRoom (or at least that's the theory!). So one TIFF is kept with whatever required exported or printed direct from LR.

Hope that helps.

Cheers
Andy

[erics500d]

Thanks for all the replies! They were very helpful and I understand much more now. I think I´ll start to save my pictures in tiff and then make a jpg of the tiff if I need it to save in internet sites etc.


But my last question: would the prints on my Canon mp640 get better if I print pictures on it in 16 bit tiff instead of printing pictures on it with 8 bit jpg??

[Cathus]

I used to save pictures in tiff but realised that mostly I was just wasting HD space.

- The vast & overwhelming majority of my photos never see the light of day beyond the internet, so they don't need to be high quality at the biggest size.

- I try to spend less than 2 minutes & often less than 1 minute processing shots, so I might crop & change levels & that's it for the huge percentage of shots

So my thinking was why save everything in files which might be 90mb when I have the original raw files plus a full size jpg. I make all my web files from the original jpg & if I really want a full size high quality print I can make it in 2 minutes from the original.

If I do spend more than a few minutes processing a file then I'll save it as a PSD, but these are few & far between.

This is just my workflow, I guess it depends on your own workflow & what you do with the files, for me it seems a senseless waste of space holding a copy as a tiff as well as the original & a working jpg.

[AndyStevens]

Originally Posted by erics500d

But my last question: would the prints on my Canon mp640 get better if I print pictures on it in 16 bit tiff instead of printing pictures on it with 8 bit jpg??

Probably not especially on an A4 printer - you only really see the benefit of tiff printing at A3 and above and then only really when there are gradual/big changes in colour and gradation becomes an issue.. Edit in 16-bit tiff for ultimate quality but store/print in 8-bit.

[erics500d]

Ok!

But why can´t I print out in 16 bit? Doesn´t my printer gives me the oportunity to do so?

[KeithT]

Because printers do not print with 16 bit colour depth, and thus there are no drivers available to do the job as far as I am aware anyway. The printing situation makes a mockery over using aRGB at higher bit depths when editing, as it is unlikely at the printing stage whether inks will cover the full gamut of colours that you have edited for. Whether this applies to top end pro book printing, or Giclee printing I don't know, but certainly from the consumer printer market it's doubtful whether you will see a 12 or 16 bit ink jet printer this side of 2012. Who knows what will happen after that though. Technology moves so fast these days.

PS. It will be very welcome by the way, if 16 bit printing became available soon. At least we would be seeing that the printer manufacturers took the business of catch-up seriously.