Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: What do others use and why?
8 bit TIFFs because once I have flattened and saved my Master TIFF I never ever go back and modify or change it so for me a psd file is unnecessary.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: I had problems with tiff files freezing, particularly if they came from 2 sources ( eg if I had some files from photomatix and some from Lightroom).
I'm guessing that one is generating interleaved and the other planar pixel ordering, I have come across some older software that only supports one or the other....it was quite a shock to find that not all tiff files are created equal
Previously Asked 1
Previously Asked 2
There was another post of exactly this question but can't find it - it did go into some detail about the differences, far more than the 2 links above. Essentially, the PSD file format has been changed over the years by Adobe and isn't, by any stretch of the phrase, an industry standard. Some non-adobe progs will open PSD type '1' but not PSD type '2'.
TIF has been unchanged for years and almost all apps read it just fine.
To continue (and add another query): I am about to buy a "bridge" camera which doesn't shoot raw, but only jpeg. Am I right in thinking that I can convert the camera's jpegs to dng files (using CS4) which are then as "good" as raws for all other purposes ?
Quote: Am I right in thinking that I can convert the camera's jpegs to dng files (using CS4) which are then as "good" as raws for all other purposes ?
No. Shooting JPEG you have immediately thrown away a large portion of the 'information' recorded by the sensor. Converting it to another format can never retrieve that information.
However converting to a lossless format before doing multiple-session manipulation is definitely a good idea.
Oh, right. Thanks Carabosse. So however good, large etc the jpeg out of camera is, it has already, even without any editing, lost quite a bit of the data that would have been present in the orginal capture if it had been done in raw ? It's a Nikon PS 510, and I was surprised it didn't shoot raw, but its "super zoom" capability so won me over I decided to accept the compromise, but wasn't aware of the point that you have just made.
To give the amount of loss a 'quantity'
Most RAW files have 14 or 16 bits worth of 'Bit Depth' giving you 16,000+ levels of tone between black and white.
JPEGs are only 8 bit giving you 256 levels of tone between black and white.
Having said that, it may be enough - dependent on the picture - but you can now see that you can't convert 'up' to 14/16 bits and get the missing info/tones back.
Edit: See here LINK
Jpegs. from bridge cameras seem to be pretty good these days and if you immediately convert them to tiffs., for example, they won't degrade due to being edited.
Having said that, and I have a feeling that you might have been involved in this CB; many moons ago someone asked, in a thread, how much degradation occurred if you kept opening and closing Jpegs.
Since no-one actually knew, a few of us did just that to one of our images and even after giving them a fairly hard time, there was no noticeable loss of quality.
It could be that the degradation would only show up under magnification but in the real world, we couldn't see a difference.
Thanks for the link, HTH; I have often wondered about bit depth, now I know !
... and just for the sake of completeness, whatever I do, my tiff, if it comes from an 8-bit jpeg, can never be anything more than 8-bit ?
Quote: many moons ago someone asked, in a thread, how much degradation occurred if you kept opening and closing Jpegs.
Opening and closing makes zero difference. Opening and resaving makes very little difference. Opening, modifying and saving makes most difference.
Quote: whatever I do, my tiff, if it comes from an 8-bit jpeg, can never be anything more than 8-bit ?
Quote: Opening and closing makes zero difference. Opening and resaving makes very little difference. Opening, modifying and saving makes most difference.
I think that that was the conclusion that we all came too but I do recall that, whatever we each did to our shots, there was no significant visual (as in real life) difference, although I suppose the modifications could have had something to do with that.
Colour shifts are the biggest difference, we found - in the distant past - when we experimented with resaving JPEGs many times.
Quote: Oh, right. Thanks Carabosse. So however good, large etc the jpeg out of camera is, it has already, even without any editing, lost quite a bit of the data that would have been present in the orginal capture if it had been done in raw ?
To be pedantic, your shot has been edited - by your camera software. Usually, this is quite close to what one might want, but occasionally not. I often shoot Raw + jpeg and sometimes the jpegs are a bit off on both my Nikon and Olympus.
Indeed, SueEley, understood; sometimes, pedantry is everything ! I have for years used my 10D, but have got a bit lazy about lugging it around, lenses and all, over the years, and so have opted for a small bridge camera, and was quite surprised to discover it did not shoot raw. But c'est la vie I suppose, any decision you take will be a compromise vis-a-vis another one you could have taken !
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar