A good file format? (Page 2): To all, Thanks for all the suggestions. there were a couple of formats I had never heard of. One that interests me is FLIF. Sounds great. I just hope that...

DoninIL Loc: East Central Illinois

To all,

Thanks for all the suggestions. there were a couple of formats I had never heard of. One that interests me is FLIF. Sounds great. I just hope that it goes over and will be supported by a lot of programs.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Peterff wrote:

Why TIFF? Files are huge and still lose information from raw files...

Because raw files are not processed images; they are not the final product.

I really don't understand the reason behind permanently saving raw files. Once I process the image, and I'm satisfied with the results, I don't need the raw file anymore. Into the trash bin it goes.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

rook2c4 wrote:

Because raw files are not processed images; they are not the final product.

I really don't understand the reason behind permanently saving raw files. Once I process the image, and I'm satisfied with the results, I don't need the raw file anymore. Into the trash bin it goes.

So if you used film you would trash your negatives?

Each to their own of course, but I find that sometimes I have a different idea or purpose for something or find a different tool, which might produce a different final product. As many have said disk space is cheap, so if I think an image is worth keeping I'd rather have the most flexible format. It's a matter of preference I guess.

I find it very interesting to see how someone like Ansel Adams produced many different versions of his works over the years as his tastes changed. Or how musicians may perform the music from the same score or basic concept and yet vary it significantly over time. It's just a different philosophy.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

DoninIL wrote:

To all,

Thanks for all the suggestions. there were a couple of formats I had never heard of. One that interests me is FLIF. Sounds great. I just hope that it goes over and will be supported by a lot of programs.

Sounds good in theory, just like Betamax did. The issue is whether or not people will adopt it, and if so, how long that takes. Adobe has been pushing .DNG files for a while, and so far not achieved a huge amount of traction. It may one day become a formal standard, but even then it may never be widely adopted.

For software developers one has to ask why would they take the trouble to support something? It all costs money, so unless there is a demand it isn't necessarily a good business decision.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DoninIL wrote:

What"s a good lossless file format to put photos in? I keep mine in RAW format, but I often convert to send to other people. JPEG isn't good if they want to do anything with them other than view or print because of the loss every time you re-save. I hate to use TIFF because the files are so huge. Is there another lossless format that isn't so big that people who can't use the RAW files can use?

I use Lightroom to import and manage my images. I keep raw/dng files, convert to psd for finish editing, and save the finished files These usually have lots of layers and they are pretty big. I generate jpegs and/or tiffs for specific destinations. but they are deleted when they are sent.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

As Sonny and Sher would sing, "And the Beat Goes On." There are more formats for graphics than you can shake a stick at, as long as the stick is not compressed too much :shock: :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_graphics_file_formats

micolh Loc: NYC

CaptainC wrote:

Well...you are stuck. You want a lossless format, ... (show quote)

A quick question along the same topic thread. If you were to send out something to a online printer. What format would you use?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

DoninIL wrote:

What"s a good lossless file format to put photos in? I keep mine in RAW format, but I often convert to send to other people. JPEG isn't good if they want to do anything with them other than view or print because of the loss every time you re-save. I hate to use TIFF because the files are so huge. Is there another lossless format that isn't so big that people who can't use the RAW files can use?

TIFF is a good format if you remember to flatten a copy (if you have added layers in PS) to send to others. This will get the image back to a baseline size.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

DoninIL wrote:

What"s a good lossless file format to put photos in? I keep mine in RAW format, but I often convert to send to other people. JPEG isn't good if they want to do anything with them other than view or print because of the loss every time you re-save. I hate to use TIFF because the files are so huge. Is there another lossless format that isn't so big that people who can't use the RAW files can use?

The amount of "loss" after modifying and resaving a JPEG is negligible. I've been experimenting with just that. When I get several hundred changes made, I'll post the results.

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

bsprague wrote:

Do you have a link to ebay or somewhere I can get one of those too?

Count me in! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ralloh Loc: Ohio

DoninIL wrote:

What"s a good lossless file format to put photos in? I keep mine in RAW format, but I often convert to send to other people. JPEG isn't good if they want to do anything with them other than view or print because of the loss every time you re-save. I hate to use TIFF because the files are so huge. Is there another lossless format that isn't so big that people who can't use the RAW files can use?

Why would you keep re-saving the JPG image? I assume you do your post processing on the RAW file. You save it to JPG. You make a copy and send it to a friend. He saves it to his hard drive. No reason for him to re-save it unless he wants to further edit it. So at most you might see three saves. You will not see any difference at all in the original JPG and the third save.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

CaptainC wrote:

Well...you are stuck. You want a lossless format, ... (show quote)

The ONLY thing I can add, is that I'd like my lens to be a 10-1200mm f1.4 (perhaps f1.2) and weigh under 3 lbs. I'm not cheap - I'll through $ 250.00 for that! :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I need to do some research, I believed that PNG was a lossless format. I have been using it for posts thinking I was accomplishing something. I keep the RAW originals but TIFF does save the edits but the file sizes are not much smaller than the RAW in my experience.

pbcbob Loc: Delray Beach, FL

Make a duplicate of your JPEG before you edit or modify and there will be no quality loss to the original.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Peterff wrote:

So if you used film you would trash your negatives?

No, I don't trash my film negatives. I need my negatives for future reprints. However, I don't need raw files for reprinting if I have a finished TIFF or JPEG version of the image.