A good file format?
Feb 4, 2016 10:42:59 #
cjc2 wrote:
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:
I want that one too. Give me the link. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Feb 4, 2016 10:52:21 #
cambriaman wrote:
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.
PNG claims lossless compression: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/ and has many advantages for some things, as do most file formats. The issue is usually matching the format to the purpose.
Also, many file formats have different options that can have an impact that affect things such as file size. With JPEG you can set different compression rations. With TIFF you can select various compression methodologies or uncompressed and also either 8 bit or 16 bit variants. All of those things have a huge effect on file size.
For example, an unedited image comes out my camera at 6.2MB as a JPEG, 23.6MB as a raw file, 51.3MB as 8bit TIFF, and 102MB when converted to 16bit TIFF.
As with most things, the devil is in the details, hence my first question: what is the reason behind the original question and for what purpose are the files going to be used?
If raw files are kept, then they can easily converted to any other format for any purpose without losing any of the original information. You can't convert a JPEG, or a TIFF back to the original raw without losing something if it can be converted at all. Certainly things can be converted to DNG, but a DNG from a TIFF will not be the same as a DNG from the original raw file from the camera.
Feb 4, 2016 11:15:06 #
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?
Just wondering, what do the other people do with them? Why not ask them what they want and fix up that one(s)?
Feb 4, 2016 12:02:56 #
bsprague wrote:
Do you have a link to ebay or somewhere I can get one of those too?
They had one at the realtor's office when I was putting down my deposit on the Brooklyn Bridge...
Feb 4, 2016 12:21:21 #
dickwilber
Loc: Indiana (currently)
GENorkus wrote:
Just wondering, what do the other people do with them? Why not ask them what they want and fix up that one(s)?
I agree wholeheartedly with GENorkus. I am very zealous about the "care and feeding" of my image files. In no circumstance do I broadcast files for others to "play" with and re-save multiple times! I might send Jpeg's to those very close to me so they can put them on their social media pages, or make prints, but there is no reason for them to make changes and re-save them repetitively!
As to your FLIF format, I reviewed the nearly 250 formats on the site dpullum linked to, and FLIF wasn't there. Even if it's as good as the FLIF website claims, it is unlikely to become widely used, and your photo's could be archived in an abandoned format. Stick with Jpeg; just keep your final version safe in storage.
Feb 4, 2016 12:25:23 #
rook2c4 wrote:
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.
I started shooting raw about 2006. Back then I had to learn how to convert the raw files to jpg. I tried a number of different programs and settled on Lightroom.
Of course I was a novice when it came to editing the files. I kept the original raw files. I looked back at them a while ago and did some re-editing. The images were significantly better. Over the last 10 years the software has gotten better, but more importantly, the software user has gotten better.
I won't throw away any of my raw files. I expect more improvement and the opportunity to improve the old pictures.
Feb 4, 2016 13:24:27 #
Feb 4, 2016 13:48:42 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
DoninIL wrote:
... 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...
What else would they be doing with YOUR images?
If someone messes with mine, I might end up suing them!
But seriously, is it a bad thing that they can only mess with YOUR images to a limited degree, before the file is ruined? Personally, I see it as a positive thing.
Another reason to use a very common file type such as JPEG is that most people are familiar with it and most computers have some means of at least viewing it built in, virtually all even have some means of making limited edits to it. Other file types might not be viewable or editable on their computers.
Feb 4, 2016 17:17:18 #
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?
Well, TIFF files are general smaller than RAW files, so I don't see your point.
Feb 4, 2016 18:39:14 #
Feb 5, 2016 00:19:10 #
speters wrote:
Well, TIFF files are generally smaller than RAW files, so I don't see your point.
That may be true for you, but it isn't for me. TIFF files are typically either 2x or 4x the raw files. It's probably a YMMV situation, but I think it is complicated depending upon many variables with no universal answer.
Feb 5, 2016 01:24:14 #
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?
You can use PNG or compressed TIFF (zip compression will result in same file size as PNG).
You can also use DNG format. Adobe will convert RAW to DNG with their free converter; this will allow you to process the files from newer cameras without updating Adobe software (other than the converter).
Feb 6, 2016 13:00:12 #
Peterff wrote:
PNG claims lossless compression: http://www.libpng... (show quote)
Many thanks for elucidating PNG a bit for me. And for the link. I also started with a Brownie 127
Feb 6, 2016 14:19:59 #
cambriaman wrote:
Many thanks for elucidating PNG a bit for me. And for the link. I also started with a Brownie 127
You're very welcome. Cambria is a great location. How are the sea otters doing?
A fun snapshot from a visit a while ago...
May 24, 2016 11:46:29 #
budjordan1
Loc: Pittsburgh, Florida
Why not use Dropbox when you want to send pictures. Whoever you send it to picks it up and its in the original format and they can take it from there
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.