File management - RAW vs TIFF

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

I would welcome any comments regarding my method of file management.

I always shoot in RAW, I download using Fast Stone Image Viewer, I delete any obviously poor shots and then I close Fast Stone and Open Adobe Bridge.

In Bridge I Batch rename or rename all the images, then I look again to decide which are best and delete the poor ones (I think the image quality is better in Bridge than Fast Stone).
I would welcome any comments on this approach so far.

Next I decide if I am going to make either a print or an image for BPN in which case I set Adobe Bridge to either 180dpi or 72dpi. I crop, adjust exposure and contrast and ensure nothing important is blown ( I use the Alt key when adjusting exposure).
Next I go to Photoshop CS2, make any necessary adjustments starting with clone, crop, shadows highlights, Levels, Hue, saturation, selective colour etc. Eventually I sharpen the image (I often use layers) once or twice depending upon the size of the image, then resize to 800 and then I use smart sharpen. Next I use the Save for Web and save the file in my BPN folder. If I have made a file for a print I save as a large JPEG or a Photoshop File. I do not make a TIFF, I store the original RAW file in various folders such as Birds, Insects , Dragonflies etc

By storing my originals as RAW am I missing a trick by not saving a TIFF. I suppose if I did save the largest size image as a TIFF I would not need to go back to the RAW and make all the post processing steps again but am I right in thinking the storage of TIFF files would use up much more space than RAW files. If storing of TIFFS is a better option would it be wise to just keep TIFFs and delete the RAW files?

Any feedback would be welcome, I suspect I may be making my image processing and file management unnecessarily labour intensive.

Jon

[JH Tugs]

Personally,I like having originals as I often look back on my processed files and realize I goofed in some way. I'd therefore want to store my images in Raw, although I am looking more towards DNG these days as a format that maybe, just maybe, would be supported longer than the individual proprietary Raw formats. But maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree there.

My issue with storing only TIFFs is that if you decide that, say, you over-sharpened in post, you would not be able to go backwards and fix it. I like programs like Lightroom for that reason - most of the enhancements I made are stored and can be changed at any time, as they are non destructive edits. In Photoshop, I use smart objects wherever possible, and save the PSD - that way I can see (and change) as many edits as possible that I made. Not everything will be non destructive but I can sure try.

But then, I do just eat up storage and don't pay much attention to how much exactly to be honest, so long as I have options. :)

My 2c.

[Bill McCrystyn]

Interesting you brought this up just now. I was logging on to ask about my file method in much the same vien. I feel there is a lot of hype out there about raw files. I guess it comes down to your end use. Mine is prints, so anything over 256 colors (8bit) is a waste of time and effort. I have always shot Large Jpeg fine - archieved immediatley as a tif - LZW compresed. That was until I got my D300 that allowed me to shoot tif out of the box. For giggles I shot a couple and then "saved as" tif compressed to compare - that's a 35mb file taken down to about 7mb. Guess what - I could see a differance in contrast and grey area between a tiff out of the camera and a compressed tif, and that's with 62 year old eyes and dirty glasses. The tif is a 8 bit file and therefore has practical application for printing so I have decieded to use it. Screw ups, changes - no problem, I go back to my tiff acheive and save an edit copy and rework or what-ever. The only question left for me is - can I tell the differance between a raw file saved as a tif uncompressed and a tiff out of the camera. If I can't, shooting the raw file first then coverting would save space on my card and in PS. Those tif files out of the camera are huge.

[Doug West]

My Way...

After downloading my images, I get rid of my obvious stinkers using BreezeBrowser.

I then use Bibble to process my Raw files. Then I save as a tif file. My personal choice is 8 bit. Nobody has ever told
me my picture would look better if I used 16 bit. My tif files are at a resolution of 240.

I make a copy of my background layer. So when I do any processing, I still have the original, untouched background
I can always go back to. Then I do 'whatever' to my tif file.

Then in the future, if I need a jpg file, I just bring up that tif, downsize, flatten and save it as a jpg.

I keep the Raw file as my backup, for example, if I accidentally deleted my tif file.

Doug

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

Thanks very much for replying everyone, you have put my mind at ease. I guess I must be a bit outdated using Adobe Bridge, no one seems to use it but it seems to work for me.
Jon

[Alfred Forns]

Jonathan might want to look into LightRoom. Will be able to have your tiff saved, have jpeg for emailing and upload to webpage for starters. Also the tools for working on your raw image are much better than any other raw converting program. In time others will catch up ... but why wait !!!!

[Robert O'Toole]

By storing my originals as RAW am I missing a trick by not saving a TIFF. I suppose if I did save the largest size image as a TIFF I would not need to go back to the RAW and make all the post processing steps again but am I right in thinking the storage of TIFF files would use up much more space than RAW files. If storing of TIFFS is a better option would it be wise to just keep TIFFs and delete the RAW files?




Continue to save your RAW files as originals, dont delete!

Considering drive space is so cheap currently you can always give saving your optimized TIFF files a try.


Robert

[Bill McCrystyn]

Ok, we have figured out a really practical reason to shoot RAW and then convert to uncompressed tif. to print. As Robert says computer room is cheap BUT CF card space isn't. I can only put about 110 Tif. files (35Mb) on my 4Gb card compared to about 300+ RAW files on the same card (do the math). I have discovered the converted uncompressed Tif. from RAW looks the same as the out of the camera Tif. and both Tif.'s are 8 bit.The reason Nikon apparently offers the shoot in Tif. format is for folks who don't have PS and or a RAW converter and want optimum quality. ???

[Roger Clark]

My personal choice is 8 bit. Nobody has ever told
me my picture would look better if I used 16 bit.

Hello Doug,
Depending on what you image, 16-bit can make a difference. 16-bit raw conversions show more detail in highlights, and less noise in shadows. On some cameras, 16-bit offers a stop or so greater dynamic range than 8-bit, and this is especially true for jpeg, even highest quality jpeg. To get the full advantage of 16-bit, one must use a raw converter that outputs 16-bit files and do all processing in 16-bit or higher.


My tif files are at a resolution of 240.

The pixels per inch (ppi) in a file, whether tif, jpeg, psd, or some other format is simply a specification for printing to an output device, like an ink-jet printer and does not change the pixels at all. Changing the ppi from 1 to 10,000,000 will not change the actual image data, unless you have resampling turned on (e.g. in photoshop). What matters more is how many pixels you have.


I make a copy of my background layer. So when I do any processing, I still have the original, untouched background I can always go back to. Then I do 'whatever' to my tif file.

If you resize the file you change the original data. For that reason, I archive the raw file (much like storing a negative), do a good raw conversion to a separate 16-bit tif file, then work on that file to produce the final image at the largest size I want, and I archive that as a separate 16-bit file. I increment version numbers/letters and archive previous versions. If you don't open them, you can accidentally change them, if you keep an older version as a layer, you can accidentally change it when editing other layers. When I want to make a print, I copy my final version, resize and apply the ICC profile for that printer and produce an 8-bit tif output file for printing. I archive that file too, as it save me time if I want to print again,and disk space is so cheap. Example:
vulture.in.fog.c01.20.2007.JZ3F8185b-700.jpg is version b, 700 pixels wide and the JZ3F8185 is from my camera, and a simple search will find the raw file.
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/vulture.in.fog.c01.20.2007.JZ3F8185b-700.html

My digital work flow:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/digitalworkflow

Roger

[Bill McCrystyn]

Quote:
"Hello Doug,
Depending on what you image, 16-bit can make a difference. 16-bit raw conversions show more detail in highlights, and less noise in shadows. On some cameras, 16-bit offers a stop or so greater dynamic range than 8-bit, and this is especially true for jpeg, even highest quality jpeg. To get the full advantage of 16-bit, one must use a raw converter that outputs 16-bit files and do all processing in 16-bit or higher."

With all due respect Doug, every thing you say above is true - but, it ignores the fact that printers are restricted to 256 colors (8 bit) relagating all the above to your monitor in PS and never to be seen on your printer. Uncompressed 8 bit tif. files out of the camera or from raw 16 bit conversions are as good as it gets for print media with the current state of the art.

[Roger Clark]

Quote:
With all due respect Doug, every thing you say above is true - but, it ignores the fact that printers are restricted to 256 colors (8 bit) relagating all the above to your monitor in PS and never to be seen on your printer. Uncompressed 8 bit tif. files out of the camera or from raw 16 bit conversions are as good as it gets for print media with the current state of the art.

1) Not all output devices are limited to 8-bits/color.

2) The real world often shows us a higher dynamic range than can be printed. Both film and digital record a large portion of the range and it is up to post processing methods to compress that range into what can be recorded by the output device. These facts are what led to the concepts of dodge and burn as well as changing contrast more than 100 years ago. Digital cameras with 12 and 14-bit output (and in a couple of years we will see 16-bit output--already there in scientific cameras) need post processing to compress that large dynamic range for printing or display on a monitor.

Roger

[Bill McCrystyn]

Well, now you have peaked my interest. What printer currently on the market will handle more than 256 colors (8 bit) ? That's he reality I am speaking about.

Yes, there are many devices that will output 12/14 bit images, my D300 is one of them, but I know of no printer that will reproduce it. It's like trying to pour a gallon of milk into a quart container. The info here just gets clipped off. It's like sRGB, it just can't handle what Adobe RGB can. It's a smaller table.

[Roger Clark]

Well, now you have peaked my interest. What printer currently on the market will handle more than 256 colors (8 bit) ? That's he reality I am speaking about.

Yes, there are many devices that will output 12/14 bit images, my D300 is one of them, but I know of no printer that will reproduce it. It's like trying to pour a gallon of milk into a quart container. The info here just gets clipped off. It's like sRGB, it just can't handle what Adobe RGB can. It's a smaller table.

Bill,
You are still missing the point. High depth images can be post processed to bring out fine details
that can then be printed on 8-bit/color printers.

But if you really insist on printers with more than 8-bits, check these out:
http://www.popphoto.com/photoprinters/3486/super-printer-shootout.html?print_page=y

And to display you images check this LCD:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1213841085.html

The key points are to record your images with as much precision as you can, because the print and display technology keeps improving, and even though it may be expensive today, it will likely be mainstream tomorrow.
And until then, you can post process images to fit into a smaller output range. But if you don't obtain the images at the high bit depth, you will never be able to take advantage of that detail.

Roger

[Bill McCrystyn]

Ok Roger, you got me. As soon as I can afford $1900 for a printer and $900 for every set of 12 ink cart. I will get one and print in 16 bit mode like there is no tomorrow - meanwhile, my 36mb 8 bit tif. files make a pretty mean print my friend, and, I don't need a proprietary reader to access them. ;)

In all fairness, I think we have both made good points here and I hope it has helped those with less understanding - it's just that sometimes I get tired of the RAW - it's my way or the highway mentality. There are pros and cons to both formats, and once again - it depends allot on your end use.

Thanks for your intelligent arguements and input.. Bill