Advice on File formats

Hi,
My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems OK for my purposes).
When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes of editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since: a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
c: File sizes are not too large

Another thing I do with my photos is upload them to BonusPrint in order to obtain prints. However, BonusPrint accept only JPG, BMP and TIFF formats so I have to convert the PNGs to TIFFs in order to upload them.

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?
Your suggestions please.

I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide support, offers compression without image data loss and more.

ljc

"Glenis" wrote in message

Hi,
My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems OK for my purposes).
When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes of editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since: a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
c: File sizes are not too large

Another thing I do with my photos is upload them to BonusPrint in order to obtain prints. However, BonusPrint accept only JPG, BMP and TIFF formats so I have to convert the PNGs to TIFFs in order to upload them.
My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?
Your suggestions please.

Why PNG?
Well, it seems to display fine in browsers I use (IE7, Firefox2 and Opera), it's lossless & file sizes are relatively small. What alternative is there to PNG?
TIF isn't supported by browsers at all and file sizes are BIG.

My question regarding quality degradation in converting from JPG to PNG is to do with my confusion on this 8-bit/16-bit option in PS (Image-Mode). I'm a little unclear as to how an 8-bit image can have more than 256 colors.
Perhaps you can point me at a good information source/book.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide support, offers compression without image data loss and more.
ljc

"Glenis" wrote in message

Hi,
My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems OK for my purposes).
When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes of editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since: a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
c: File sizes are not too large

Another thing I do with my photos is upload them to BonusPrint in order to obtain prints. However, BonusPrint accept only JPG, BMP and TIFF formats so I have to convert the PNGs to TIFFs in order to upload them.
My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?
Your suggestions please.

In article <45d23f30$0$8718$>,
Glenis wrote:

Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?

No. PNG, like TIFF, is lossless. You can change between lossless file formats with no degradation at all.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <45d24de4$0$8719$>,
Glenis wrote:

My question regarding quality degradation in converting from JPG to PNG is to do with my confusion on this 8-bit/16-bit option in PS (Image-Mode). I'm a little unclear as to how an 8-bit image can have more than 256 colors.

You are confusing 8 bits per CHANNEL with eight bits per PIXEL.

Eight bits per CHANNEL means eight bits of red, eight bits of green, and eight bits of blue, for a total of 24 bits per pixel and a total of 16 million colors.

Eight bits per PIXEL means each pixel is made of a total of eight bits, for a total of 256 colors maximum.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Thanks.

tacit wrote:

In article <45d24de4$0$8719$>,
Glenis wrote:

My question regarding quality degradation in converting from JPG to PNG is to do with my confusion on this 8-bit/16-bit option in PS (Image-Mode). I'm a little unclear as to how an 8-bit image can have more than 256 colors.

You are confusing 8 bits per CHANNEL with eight bits per PIXEL.
Eight bits per CHANNEL means eight bits of red, eight bits of green, and eight bits of blue, for a total of 24 bits per pixel and a total of 16 million colors.

Eight bits per PIXEL means each pixel is made of a total of eight bits, for a total of 256 colors maximum.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?

PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
will not reduce your quality. See also:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Formats/Image-Formats.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:25:39 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe" wrote:

I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide support, offers compression without image data loss and more.

Which browsers support TIF?

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Yeah, thanks for that.
Being fairly new at this, I was just wondering if I had missed the obvious. However, it seems to me that PNGs, being lossless and supported by the main Browsers is a pretty good format with which to save images (although I was a little surprised by the comment by
Little Juice Coupe

It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very
well supported by most browsers.

If PNG is 'pretty much dead' then what's the alternative? JPG is maybe ubiquitous but it's lossy and I don't like the sound of lossy at all.
TIFF (as far as I can discover) is a pretty old format and I can see no good reason for using it. OK, it's lossless but it produces BIG files, is not compatible with Browsers and if one uses Photoshop then you may as well stick to PSD for Layers etc.
But for archiving purposes I'm not too sure which format will be the best.

Owen Ransen wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?

PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
will not reduce your quality. See also:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Formats/Image-Formats.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Nothing was said about the web in the OP except as a side note and not as the main reason he was converting his JPGs to PNG.

ljc

"Owen Ransen" wrote in message

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:25:39 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe" wrote:

I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do
have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide support, offers compression without image data loss and more.

Which browsers support TIF?

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

That is the problem. Microsoft did a great job of ensuring the PNG would never be widely adopted and it isn't. Sure most programs will save it but few browsers full support the format. The web has two major image formats like it or not and those a JPG and GIF.

Your original post only mentioned the web as a side note. It seemed that you were more interested in a format that wasn't lossy to store your digital camera images as and that format is TIF. If you need to put them on the web you are most likely going to have to resize them down anyways so PNG isn't really a benefit.

There is also no guarantee that PNG will be supported in a few years. TIF will be since Adobe owns and controls it.

ljc

"Glenis" wrote in message

Yeah, thanks for that.
Being fairly new at this, I was just wondering if I had missed the obvious.
However, it seems to me that PNGs, being lossless and supported by the main Browsers is a pretty good format with which to save images (although I was a little surprised by the comment by
Little Juice Coupe

It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers.

If PNG is 'pretty much dead' then what's the alternative? JPG is maybe ubiquitous but it's lossy and I don't like the sound of lossy at all.
TIFF (as far as I can discover) is a pretty old format and I can see no good reason for using it. OK, it's lossless but it produces BIG files, is not compatible with Browsers and if one uses Photoshop then you may as well stick to PSD for Layers etc.
But for archiving purposes I'm not too sure which format will be the best.

Owen Ransen wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?

PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
will not reduce your quality. See also:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Formats/Image-Formats.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Well, Web compatibility was one of the reasons for my choosing PNG. See:

When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes of editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since:
a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
c: File sizes are not too large

The only PNG issues I've heard of re the Web is Transparency, which doesn't bother me.
You suggest that TIFF will always be supported since Adobe owns/controls it. Isn't that also the case with PSD? (smaller file sizes). What about compressed TIFF (LZW)? Apart from file size, what is the difference?

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

That is the problem. Microsoft did a great job of ensuring the PNG would never be widely adopted and it isn't. Sure most programs will save it but few browsers full support the format. The web has two major image formats like it or not and those a JPG and GIF.

Your original post only mentioned the web as a side note. It seemed that you were more interested in a format that wasn't lossy to store your digital camera images as and that format is TIF. If you need to put them on the web you are most likely going to have to resize them down anyways so PNG isn't really a benefit.

There is also no guarantee that PNG will be supported in a few years. TIF will be since Adobe owns and controls it.

ljc

"Glenis" wrote in message

Yeah, thanks for that.
Being fairly new at this, I was just wondering if I had missed the obvious.
However, it seems to me that PNGs, being lossless and supported by the main Browsers is a pretty good format with which to save images (although I was a little surprised by the comment by
Little Juice Coupe

It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers.

If PNG is 'pretty much dead' then what's the alternative? JPG is maybe ubiquitous but it's lossy and I don't like the sound of lossy at all.
TIFF (as far as I can discover) is a pretty old format and I can see no good reason for using it. OK, it's lossless but it produces BIG files, is not compatible with Browsers and if one uses Photoshop then you may as well stick to PSD for Layers etc.
But for archiving purposes I'm not too sure which format will be the best.

Owen Ransen wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?

PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
will not reduce your quality. See also:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Formats/Image-Formats.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images in a nitch format.

The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't support that well.

There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program) don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers. But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.

The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.

ljc

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of TIFF, but TIFF itself?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ wrote:

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of TIFF, but TIFF itself?

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm ?catid=593&threadid=1175025&enterthread=y#4210590
or
http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.
--
Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen
The Magazine of Folk and World Music
www.dirtylinen.com
Remove "SpamBeGone" to reply.

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ wrote:

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of TIFF, but TIFF itself?

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm ?catid=593&threadid=1175025&enterthread=y#4210590
or
http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.

Good reference, although I'd not conclude that Adobe is waving people off of PSD files. Made me think more of TIFFs though.

--
JOhn McWilliams

JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is the same as a lossless image, meaning no data is lost and your picture will be exactly how you left it.

In article <er2q1q$ebl$>,
"Aaron Sun" wrote:

JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is the same as a lossless image...

False.

Absolutely false. Even at quality 12, there is still loss. This JPEG setting absolutely IS NOT lossless, as saving an image in JPEG and the same image in TIFF and then placing the two images over one another in Difference mode will show.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them, including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally. BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still supported pretty much universally.
The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so either that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth. But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images in a nitch format.

The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't support that well.

There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program) don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers. But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.
The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.
ljc

I have done a search on the Adobe forums and unfortunately they don't go back far enough. This was early 2006 and it was Chris Cox that brought it some one someone was talking about archiving their images in PSD because they felt it was the more future proof format. It was then that Chris said Adobe was moving away from PSD and doing more with TIF. However, he also said that there are no plans to end PSD support in Adobe products (those that do support it like Photoshop) anytime soon. The reasoning given was that TIF can do everything PSD can, but it is much more extensible and easier to keep backwards compatible (though not always like with layers in TIF files).

ljc

"JJ" wrote in message

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of TIFF, but TIFF itself?

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm ?catid=593&threadid=1175025&enterthread=y#4210590
or
http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Help me out - who are the Adobe developers in those URLs.

Aaron Sun wrote:

JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is the same as a lossless image

Bullshit.

That covers some of it but the original post was early 2006 and by Chris Cox. I just found an archive of posts that goes back to 3-06, still couldn't find it. The Jeff Schewe posts covers some of it.

It certainly isn't anything I would worry about. But, I also wouldn't archive my images in PSD format either. For work in progress not problem. Long term I don't think so.

ljc

"Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ wrote:

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it,
but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are
developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on
the Adobe user forums).

Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of TIFF, but TIFF itself?

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm ?catid=593&threadid=1175025&enterthread=y#4210590
or
http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.
--
Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen
The Magazine of Folk and World Music
www.dirtylinen.com
Remove "SpamBeGone" to reply.

No it isn't. There is no setting you can use with JPG that doesn't cause data loss. You may not see it until you do the 20th save or whatever, but data is being lost.

ljc

"Aaron Sun" wrote in message

JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is the same as a lossless image, meaning no data is lost and your picture will be exactly how you left it.

JJ wrote:

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm ?catid=593&threadid=1175025&enterthread=y#4210590

or
http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Help me out - who are the Adobe developers in those URLs.

Jeff Schewe is the main, perhaps only, one.

--
John McWilliams

Glenis wrote:

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them, including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.

TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in terms of "archival" quality in images.

PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but among the least "archival".

--
John McWilliams

You don't have to be. Use what you like. At least you now have some more information and I assume you can decide for yourself. That is what these groups are all about, getting information so once can make the best choice for themselves or to learn how to do something new.

ljc

"Glenis" wrote in message

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them, including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally. BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still supported pretty much universally.
The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so either that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth. But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images in a nitch format.

The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't support that well.

There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program) don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers. But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.

The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.

ljc

It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is one that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the three that will make it that long if not longer. TIF and JPG are both over a decade old, TIF I think older than that.

Will any of these be around in 100 years? Sure, in the Smithsonian in a display of a mannequin holding a CD with a little sign under it saying something like "100 years ago these small plastic discs (CDs) are what people stored their images on. They used file formats like TIF, DNG, PSD and JPG. While this CD contains images we currently have no way of accessing. The specifications for these formats as well as the format for the CD have long since been lost."

In other words they are going to look back and think we were cave people with low sloped foreheads.

ljc

"John McWilliams" wrote in message

Glenis wrote:

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them, including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.

TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in terms of "archival" quality in images.

PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but among the least "archival".

--
John McWilliams

Yes, the comments from this group have given me food for thought and encouraged more research. As a result, I'm now leaning in the direction of TIFFs.
The only other consideration is that if I convert all of my pictures from PNG to TIF I will need at least twice as much storage space. So, it'll be time for another hard drive.
Thanks for everyone's comments.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

You don't have to be. Use what you like. At least you now have some more information and I assume you can decide for yourself. That is what these groups are all about, getting information so once can make the best choice for themselves or to learn how to do something new.

ljc

"Glenis" wrote in message

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them, including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally. BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still supported pretty much universally.
The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so either that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth. But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on the Adobe user forums).

The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images in a nitch format.

The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't support that well.

There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program) don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers. But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.

The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.

ljc

On Feb 16, 10:25 am, "Little Juice Coupe" wrote:

It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is one that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the three that will make it that long if not longer. TIF and JPG are both over a decade old, TIF I think older than that.

Will any of these be around in 100 years? Sure, in the Smithsonian in a display of a mannequin holding a CD with a little sign under it saying something like "100 years ago these small plastic discs (CDs) are what people stored their images on. They used file formats like TIF, DNG, PSD and JPG. While this CD contains images we currently have no way of accessing. The specifications for these formats as well as the format for the CD have long since been lost."

[snip]

If the Smithsonian can preserve a CD, they can surely preserve a specification of a format!

Once a format becomes identified as an archival format, and used by professional archivists and librarians, it is very likely to survive. Those people know the importance of active management of their collections - that is how we still have archives of negatives and photographs from so many decades ago.

ISO 19005-1 is "Document management - Electronic document file format for long-term preservation". Isn't that likely to gain a LOT of attention from archivists and librarians worldwide? Won't that ensure that lots of specifications are preserved in that format, and the means to read those specifications will be ensured?

Is ISO 19005-1 likely to be supported? In fact, it is also known as PDF/A. It is, in effect, a subset of PDF. I don't know whether existing PDF-versions of these file formats can be read by a PDF/A reader, but if not I'm sure conforming versions will be written.

(Will it be possible to run C-code in 100 years time? I suspect it will. And there is plenty of C-code that supports the above file formats).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:21:52 +0000, Glenis wrote:

Yes, the comments from this group have given me food for thought and encouraged more research. As a result, I'm now leaning in the direction of TIFFs.
The only other consideration is that if I convert all of my pictures from PNG to TIF I will need at least twice as much storage space. So, it'll be time for another hard drive.

At least you will be doing so at a time when external storage devices are wonderfully cheap. You can find deals for external hard drives that hold over 300 gigs that sell for under $100.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems OK for my purposes).

If your photos are important to you, and you want your grandchildren to be able to see them you should really really print them:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Image_Conservation/Default.ht m

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Well, I do have a few printed using online photo processing services such as Jessops, Bonusprint and Trueprint.
However, since I have about 3000 photos it's not feasible to print them all. I can only assume, perhaps dangerously, that by the time my Grandchildren are interested in looking at photos of their ancestors, things will have moved on somewhat.
I have numerous photos of my ancestors that I've scanned and restored. When those photos were taken, some almost 90 years ago, no-one would have imagined the technology we have available today to digitally resurrect them. Similarly, we cannot imagine the technologies that will be available in 90 years time to recover pictures from duff CDs/DVDs/HDs. It's interesting that many people, most likely the majority, have only a passing interest in their ancestors. I spend many hours doing photography and restoration because it's an interest of mine, but having laboriously restored old photos of our grandparents and later shown them to the rest of the family, their response is: "Oh yeah". It's merely a passing interest and no big part of their lives.
Before we had digital cameras I compiled loads of photo albums (I've got a cupboard full of 'em) but how often did anyone look at them? Very rarely, if at all!
So I'm not too worried.
If, in the future, a descendant of mine is sufficiently interested in their descendants images then it's possible that, by then, the means will exist to extract the data from the pile of backup CDs/DVDs that I have.

Owen Ransen wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems OK for my purposes).

If your photos are important to you, and you want your grandchildren to be able to see them you should really really print them:
http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Image_Conservation/Default.ht m

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:21:52 +0000, Glenis wrote:

Yes, the comments from this group have given me food for thought and encouraged more research. As a result, I'm now leaning in the direction of TIFFs.
The only other consideration is that if I convert all of my pictures from PNG to TIF I will need at least twice as much storage space. So, it'll be time for another hard drive.

At least you will be doing so at a time when external storage devices are wonderfully cheap. You can find deals for external hard drives that hold over 300 gigs that sell for under $100.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Yes, Fry's Electronics just advertised an ATA-100 300GB (do not recall the RPM or mfgr.) for US$69. For US$700 you could get a 2TB 10/100/1000 RAID 0 or 5 storage array.

Hunt

Hunt

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

"John McWilliams" wrote in message

TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in terms of "archival" quality in images.

PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but among the least "archival".

It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is

one

that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the three that will make it that long if not longer.

I should have said DNG, perhaps, instead of RAW, but both those, and TIFF and PSD meet my definition of an archival format in that they are recognized and widely supported and are lossless HQ formats. JPEG fails the last one.

I'm not concerned that my gramophone records aren't supported by current hardware. I can get them made into .aiff files any old time.

In other words they are going to look back and think we were cave people with low sloped foreheads.

Uh, some of us are.

--
john mcwilliams

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:42:24 +0000, Glenis wrote:

Before we had digital cameras I compiled loads of photo albums (I've got a cupboard full of 'em) but how often did anyone look at them? Very rarely, if at all!

I and my friends look at my old albums all the time:

"Look how fat you have got!"

"Look how thin you were!"

"What a fresh face you had!"

"He'd dead now."

"She married that idiot...what was his name...?"

I find photos of landscapes or people I don't know are boring, its photos of people I know which I go back to every year or so...

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:22:25 -0800, Little Juice Coupe in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

That is the problem. Microsoft did a great job of ensuring the PNG would never be widely adopted and it isn't. Sure most programs will save it but few browsers full support the format. The web has two major image formats like it or not and those a JPG and GIF.

Actually this is incorrect. The latest MSFT browser, AKA IE 7 supports PNG transparency, which previously IE 6 didn't, unless one used a hack. PNGs without transparency have been supported by all the main browsers since at least y2k.

Your original post only mentioned the web as a side note. It seemed that you were more interested in a format that wasn't lossy to store your digital camera images as and that format is TIF. If you need to put them on the web you are most likely going to have to resize them down anyways so PNG isn't really a benefit.

It's called "Portable Network Graphic" for a reason, and offers one what tif does, but as a good online format. All new browsers support PNGs completely. The only browser I know that supports tif format is Apple Safarai and maybe by extension, Kongi on Linux, since that's were Apple pulled the code for Safari's web kit.

There is also no guarantee that PNG will be supported in a few years. TIF will be since Adobe owns and controls it.

Poppycock -- PNG is an open format and will supported well into the future.

"Glenis" wrote in message

Yeah, thanks for that.
Being fairly new at this, I was just wondering if I had missed the obvious.
However, it seems to me that PNGs, being lossless and supported by the main Browsers is a pretty good format with which to save images (although I was a little surprised by the comment by
Little Juice Coupe

It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very well supported by most browsers.

If PNG is 'pretty much dead' then what's the alternative? JPG is maybe ubiquitous but it's lossy and I don't like the sound of lossy at all.
TIFF (as far as I can discover) is a pretty old format and I can see no good reason for using it. OK, it's lossless but it produces BIG files, is not compatible with Browsers and if one uses Photoshop then you may as well stick to PSD for Layers etc.
But for archiving purposes I'm not too sure which format will be the best.

Owen Ransen wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis wrote:

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?

PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
will not reduce your quality. See also:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Formats/Image-Formats.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:34:34 -0500, tacit wrote:

In article <er2q1q$ebl$>,
"Aaron Sun" wrote:

JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is the same as a lossless image...

False.

Absolutely false. Even at quality 12, there is still loss. This JPEG setting absolutely IS NOT lossless, as saving an image in JPEG and the same image in TIFF and then placing the two images over one another in Difference mode will show.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:15:30 GMT, Daniel Minge
wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

I lost some JPGs on a CDROM because I left it
on a park bench. Came back an hour later gone!
Lost! JPGs are NOT lossless.

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

In article ,
Daniel Minge wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to which it is saved.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Daniel Minge wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to which it is saved.

I was not sure of the posters intention...does he really think that JPGs are lossless because the file doesn't lose any bits because it is on a sturdy CDROM support....

His name does not instill confidence in his intentions.

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Daniel Minge wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to which it is saved.

There actually is an ISO lossless JPEG specification but few if any applications use it, certainly not Photoshop.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Charlie Choc wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Daniel Minge wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to which it is saved.

There actually is an ISO lossless JPEG specification but few if any applications use it, certainly not Photoshop.

Yep better read this

http://www.hpl.hp.com/loco/

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:59:31 +1100, Rob wrote:

Charlie Choc wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Daniel Minge wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to which it is saved.

There actually is an ISO lossless JPEG specification but few if any applications use it, certainly not Photoshop.

Yep better read this

http://www.hpl.hp.com/loco/

Yes. Lossy compression in JPG images no doubt
accounts for the fact that not many people
use this format. :-)

Daniel Minge wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:59:31 +1100, Rob wrote:

Charlie Choc wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit wrote:

In article ,
Daniel Minge wrote:

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to which it is saved.

There actually is an ISO lossless JPEG specification but few if any applications use it, certainly not Photoshop.

Yep better read this

http://www.hpl.hp.com/loco/

Yes. Lossy compression in JPG images no doubt
accounts for the fact that not many people
use this format. :-)

From the HP site
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

JPEG-LS is the new lossless/near-lossless compression standard for continuous-tone images, ISO-14495-1/ITU-T.87. The standard is based on the LOCO-I algorithm (LOw COmplexity LOssless COmpression for Images) developed at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories.

The term "near-lossless compression" refers to a lossy algorithm for which each reconstructed image sample differs from the corresponding original image sample by not more than a pre-specified value, the (usually small) "loss." Lossless compression corresponds to loss=0.

An earlier version of the standard draft can be found at the official JPEG Web site.

Comparisons with other lossless image compression schemes.

* Comparisons with the old lossless JPEG (Huffman and arithmetic), CALIC, FELICS, and PNG can be found in the full paper.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,

**** You can get from that site a Photoshop Plugin BTW

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,

Get HP Labs' software implementation of JPEG-LS
JPEG-LS DLL and Plug-in for Adobe Photoshop

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,