TIFF vs. JPEG – which do you recommend for scanned photos?

N
Posted By
Nidhal
Dec 26, 2004
Views
893
Replies
33
Status
Closed
I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning them would make the answer different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.

I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s some compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I’m unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just scanning them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if there’s anything you found out later that you wish you had known when you started process.

Thanks again for any help you can provide.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

C
Corey
Dec 26, 2004
"Nikko" wrote in message
I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
family
photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning them would make the
answer
different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.
I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s some compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I’m unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just
scanning
them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if there’s anything you found out later that you wish you had known when you started process.

Thanks again for any help you can provide.
You’re correct. There is a trade off in saving a file as a TIFF or JPEG. The tradeoff is the usual one of file size versus quality.

TIFFs are more flexible, offering a wider range of features, options and application than JPEGs. TIFFs support RGB, CMYK, Lab, indexed-color, and grayscale images with alpha channels and Bitmap-mode images without alpha channels. TIFFs are usually considered "lossless" and can be saved with no compression, with LZW and ZIP compression (both lossless) or JPEG compression (lossy). Either of the first two compression methods may warrant your further consideration.

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Another lossless format you may want to consider is PNG, should this option be available. PNG files are usually much smaller than TIFF files and larger than JPGs. PNG supports 24-bit images and produces background transparency without the jagged edges associated with GIFs. Note too that not all Web browsers support PNGs.

PNG format does not support CMYK, but does support RGB, indexed-color, grayscale, and Bitmap-mode images without alpha channels. PNG preserves transparency in grayscale and RGB images, although again, not all Web browsers support PNG transparencies. If you’re not overly concerned with the Web or CMYK printing, PNG may be the best choice when comparing file size and quality. Of course, PNGs can later be saved in other formats that do support CMYK color.

I credit confirmation from Photoshop Help and www.wikipedia.com with much of this information

…not wishing to plagiarize!

Peadge 🙂
X
Xalinai
Dec 26, 2004
Nikko wrote:

I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning them would make the answer different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.

It is in so far that when scanning you have the full freedom to decide for the best format for your needs.

I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s some compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I’m unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just scanning them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if there’s anything you found out later that you wish you had known when you started process.

Digital images do age in a different way than their analog counterparts: If you decide for the wrong format and do not care to migrate media every so many years you may have he bits and bytes but be unable to view them.

Your choice of TIF and JPG is already a good one in so far as both are published standards that do not deped on a certain proprietary software.

Your decision for either of them should consider the number of pixels of your scans and the size you want to have when you some time in the future decide to have the images printed.

For small images – that is images in the size of a 4×6 at 300dpi or 1200×1800 pixels – TIF is undoubtedly the best format as it is lossless and does not introduce image errors even when compressed.

For larger images in the range beyond 4000×6000 pixels, JPEG using a carefully adjusted compression will not do too much damage compared to the size of the image and the benefit of the smaller file size.

For anything in between you should compare the result of the different formats, whether the file size is acceptable or the compression loss didn’t do too much damage.

Always keep in mind that JPG compression works by losing data that you supposedly will not see – but it does lose data that was in your original scan.

Michael
J
jjs
Dec 26, 2004
You can have compressed TIFF files, too. TIFF is the way to go. JPEG is a waste of time for storage purposes. Disc space is cheap.

Consider your final output requisites. For example, if you have an 8×10" image to scan, then scanning to get an image 2880 x 3600 pixels will assure that you get good prints of the same size.
M
Michael
Dec 27, 2004
Hello,
Here are my 2 cents worth.
I work in the graphics industry and manage a graphics department.

For professional uses TIF is your best format. Disk space is not as expensive to come by as it used to be and the file format is more friendly to professional output devices. I use TIF with LZW compression for most of the graphics we use for printing and prepress. On the other hand our royalty free image catalogs are in JPEG format because that is how they were provided so we keep the original that way with Photoshop files for the edited versions. Photoshop does compress it’s images with a lossless format.
LZW compression for TIF images is lossless and does not damage the image in any way. Though since we are using CMYK instead of RGB our image size is large with the extra color space.

For my own family photo archive I am using JPEG format in RGB color with the quality set to high.

JPEG compression is Lossy which means it damages the image to gain the great compression. Low quality doing the worst damage and high doing the least. For black and white photos grayscale will be a smaller file unless you are going for the sepia color that the original image has. I am doing this with an old retouched photo of my grand parents.

JPEG is a much more universal file for your archive. The RGB color space allows more colors and the photographic output formats for photo prints accept JPG files. It is platform independent.

A great many stock photo houses have invested lots of time and money in their own libraries in this format. Expect it to be around for a little while. 20 years from now our Quantum computers should be able to read the ancient JPEG format.

Keep your achive backed up. Don’t trust the shelf life of CDs. Don’t worry in a couple of years you can download your multi-gig library to your phone/gaming or whatever device comes out next. Keep the library moving and in several places. A spare firewire or USB 2 drive is an excellent option.

Michael H

Go to these sites for some info on graphic formats:
http://www.dansdata.com/graphics.htm
http://www.compukiss.com/sandyclassroom/tutorials/article934 .htm http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Formats/Image-Formats.htm

Nikko wrote:

I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning them would make the answer different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.
I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s some compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I’m unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just scanning them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if there’s anything you found out later that you wish you had known when you started process.

Thanks again for any help you can provide.

G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Dec 27, 2004
"Nikko" wrote in message
: I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family
: photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). : I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or : TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning them would make the answer
: different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera. :
: I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s some : compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort of : trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I’m : unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I : supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just scanning
: them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. : Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d : also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project. : Mostly wondering if there’s anything you found out later that you wish you : had known when you started process.
:
: Thanks again for any help you can provide.

You’ve answered your own question with the trade-off
question. All of your assumptions are correct. You have
to take into consideration the number of scans and your
disk space. I have almost a terabyte but still scan at
high quality jpegs though. You can always reduce resolution but not increase it. Good luck. : -)
G
Gadgets
Dec 27, 2004
Great reply from Michael, but something to add might be that if you can scan in 16 bit colour (presuming you want to keep any yellowing/sepia and the detail it represents), then you won’t be able to save to jpg until it’s downconverted to 8 bit. For archiving as much as possible, and LZW compressed tiff would be the way to go.

For ease of use and almost as good, then max quality jpg…

Perhaps store raw 16 bit scans as tif, and have jpgs (maybe screen res) for previewing?

Cheers, Jason
Photo folio:
http://gadgetaus.com/photos
DM
David Magda
Dec 28, 2004
"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.


David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. — Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
TG
The Gadget Shop
Dec 28, 2004
Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’?

It’s a great format, but not widely supported… yet.

Cheers, Jason
Photo folio:
http://gadgetaus.com/photos
G
ggull
Dec 28, 2004
"Nikko" wrote .
I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred
family
photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or TIFF. <snip> I’m
unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just
scanning
them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals.

First off, you might want to google on comp.periphs.scanners for the last score times or so variations of this question have been posed :-), and maybe post there. There are many considerations beyond just what format to use for storing the files, such as the resolution (dpi), whether to scan black and white prints as color or not, 8 or 16 bits per channel, proper dusting/cleaning of scanner (and maybe photos).

(As to scanning b&w prints, in particular, my own purely subjective experience has been that color scans somehow look better .. maybe the three channels allow for some finer gradation in the luminance? or is it just that the inevitable slight off-white tinge is reproduced?)

If you can possibly spare the storage, I’d highly recommend using TIFF or some other 100% non-lossy file format. If you find yourself depending on JPEGs and later want to do some restoration or trying to drag out details in the images,
BUT … if it’s a choice between high quality (i.e. low compression) JPEG at the resolution appropriate to your source (say 300 dpi) and TIFF at a lower resolution (say 150 dpi), it’s not so obvious. I can only say, experiment. And do the arithmetic or scan a few samples and compare file sizes.

It’s true, as several have pointed out, that repeatedly saving an image as JPEG, then reading it into a photo editor to, say, crop it and rewriting it as JPEG … then reading JPEG#2 and, say, adjusting the color balance and then writing JPEG#3 … and so forth … will degrade the image with each step. BUT … that’s stupid workflow. This can be much obviated by starting any adjustment/editing with the original scanned JPEG, storing any intermediate steps if needed in TIFF (PSD, etc.).

A lot depends on the size and quality of the photos. Are we talking about 8×10 studio portraits or out of focus, business card sized snapshots? (You may actually want the best quality files for the crappiest photos, if you later want to try to improve them.)

A mixed approach might be your best solution … say scan everything as TIFF, then use photoshop to create a set of JPEGs for distributing to family on CD. Or do the bulk at lower resolution or in JPEG, but the higher quality prints or those more critical (the only picture of aunt Sadie, with washed out highlights but maybe restorable), in lossless high resolution.
X
Xalinai
Dec 28, 2004
David Magda wrote:

"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.

It still relies upon dropping information for efficient compression.

It has less visible artifacts, more like a heavy blur instead.

It supports a lossless (but ineffective) compression.

It isn’t supported (natively) by any of the major web browsers.

Michael
C
Clyde
Dec 28, 2004
David Magda wrote:
"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

Yeah, it’s not widely used, but my Photoshop CS reads it. It likely will continue to read it for decades in the future. Besides, I’m not likely to even need it either.

Clyde
C
Clyde
Dec 28, 2004
Xalinai wrote:
David Magda wrote:

"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.

It still relies upon dropping information for efficient compression.
It has less visible artifacts, more like a heavy blur instead.
It supports a lossless (but ineffective) compression.

It isn’t supported (natively) by any of the major web browsers.
Michael

What makes the lossless compression of JPEG2000 "ineffective"? If it’s truly lossless (it certainly appears to be) and it makes the smallest files (it does from my CS) what is "ineffective" about it? That we seem to fit the definition of "effective" pretty well.

The lossless option in it certainly doesn’t drop information. It also doesn’t have any artifacts or blur. Well, other than what you left in your picture.

Since I’m archiving my files and don’t care about viewing them on Web browsers, it doesn’t matter. Besides, TIFF isn’t supported by Web browsers either.

Clyde
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Dec 28, 2004
"Clyde" wrote in message
: Xalinai wrote:
: > David Magda wrote:
: >
: >
: >>"Peadge" writes:
: >>
: >>
: >>>JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective : >>>discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces : >>>artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG : >>>format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not : >>>support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an : >>>image editing program will further deteriorate the image. : >>
: >>Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? : >>Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an : >>alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have : >>more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think. : >
: >
: > It still relies upon dropping information for efficient compression. : >
: > It has less visible artifacts, more like a heavy blur instead. : >
: > It supports a lossless (but ineffective) compression. : >
: > It isn’t supported (natively) by any of the major web browsers. : >
: > Michael
:
: What makes the lossless compression of JPEG2000 "ineffective"? If it’s : truly lossless (it certainly appears to be) and it makes the smallest : files (it does from my CS) what is "ineffective" about it? That we seem : to fit the definition of "effective" pretty well. :
: The lossless option in it certainly doesn’t drop information. It also : doesn’t have any artifacts or blur. Well, other than what you left in : your picture.
:
: Since I’m archiving my files and don’t care about viewing them on Web : browsers, it doesn’t matter. Besides, TIFF isn’t supported by Web : browsers either.
:
: Clyde

I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe. The idea of a blurring compression doesn’t seem to be right because blurry pics take up more room than sharp ones. I really don’t see why anyone wouldn’t be happy with the high quality jpeg compression unless they are doing magazine work or something similar.

Sometimes production values seem to be more important than content to some.
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Dec 28, 2004
"ggull" wrote in message
: "Nikko" wrote .
: > I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred : family
: > photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference).
: > I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or
: > TIFF. <snip> I’m
: > unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I : > supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just : scanning
: > them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. :
: First off, you might want to google on comp.periphs.scanners for the last : score times or so variations of this question have been posed :-), and maybe
: post there. There are many considerations beyond just what format to use : for storing the files, such as the resolution (dpi), whether to scan black : and white prints as color or not, 8 or 16 bits per channel, proper : dusting/cleaning of scanner (and maybe photos).
:
: (As to scanning b&w prints, in particular, my own purely subjective : experience has been that color scans somehow look better .. maybe the three
: channels allow for some finer gradation in the luminance? or is it just that
: the inevitable slight off-white tinge is reproduced?)
:
: If you can possibly spare the storage, I’d highly recommend using TIFF or : some other 100% non-lossy file format. If you find yourself depending on : JPEGs and later want to do some restoration or trying to drag out details in
: the images,
: BUT … if it’s a choice between high quality (i.e. low compression) JPEG at
: the resolution appropriate to your source (say 300 dpi) and TIFF at a lower
: resolution (say 150 dpi), it’s not so obvious. I can only say, experiment.
: And do the arithmetic or scan a few samples and compare file sizes. :
: It’s true, as several have pointed out, that repeatedly saving an image as : JPEG, then reading it into a photo editor to, say, crop it and rewriting it
: as JPEG … then reading JPEG#2 and, say, adjusting the color balance and : then writing JPEG#3 … and so forth … will degrade the image with each : step. BUT … that’s stupid workflow. This can be much obviated by : starting any adjustment/editing with the original scanned JPEG, storing any
: intermediate steps if needed in TIFF (PSD, etc.).
:
: A lot depends on the size and quality of the photos. Are we talking about : 8×10 studio portraits or out of focus, business card sized snapshots? (You
: may actually want the best quality files for the crappiest photos, if you : later want to try to improve them.)
:
: A mixed approach might be your best solution … say scan everything as : TIFF, then use photoshop to create a set of JPEGs for distributing to family
: on CD. Or do the bulk at lower resolution or in JPEG, but the higher : quality prints or those more critical (the only picture of aunt Sadie, with
: washed out highlights but maybe restorable), in lossless high resolution. :
:

Good advice, it seems to me. With the plummeting costs of disk drives ($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry’s last weekend) you can’t go wrong anyway and you can
buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X.
J
jjs
Dec 28, 2004
"formerly known as ‘cat arranger’" wrote
in message
I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.

The Jpeg2000 standard specifies a lossless method. In addition it has a lot of ambitious add-in ideas such as a guaranteed color space for pre-press, 3D standards, security methods.
NS
Nicholas Sherlock
Dec 28, 2004
formerly known as ‘cat arranger’ wrote:
I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.

Yes, it has an entirely lossless mode.

The idea of a blurring
compression doesn’t seem to be right because blurry pics take up more room than sharp ones.

What you see when you see a "Blurred" picture from Jpeg2000 is simply the low frequency components of the image.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Dec 29, 2004
"jjs" <john&#064;xstafford.net> wrote in message
: "formerly known as ‘cat arranger’"
wrote
: in message :
: > I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.
:
: The Jpeg2000 standard specifies a lossless method. In addition it has a lot
: of ambitious add-in ideas such as a guaranteed color space for pre-press, 3D
: standards, security methods.

When you say color space for pre-press, does that mean that the colors are substituted into the range of the printers equipment? What are 3D standards? I stand corrected about the lossy/lossless issue.
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Dec 29, 2004
"Nicholas Sherlock" wrote in message
: formerly known as ‘cat arranger’ wrote:
: > I doubt that Jpeg2000 is lossless but maybe.
:
: Yes, it has an entirely lossless mode.
:
: > The idea of a blurring
: > compression doesn’t seem to be right because blurry pics take up : > more room than sharp ones.
:
: What you see when you see a "Blurred" picture from Jpeg2000 is simply : the low frequency components of the image.
:
: Cheers,
: Nicholas Sherlock

Sorry to appear so ignorant but what are low frequency components? Sounds like infrequent or non-gradation colors which would be more blotchy, no?
DM
David Magda
Dec 29, 2004
Clyde writes:

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

Is there a particular brand or manufacturer for these "’gold’ CDs"? I know some people who are running low on the old Kodak gold-on-gold ones and would be interested in what’s available.

Thanks for any info.


David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. — Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
R
RSD99
Dec 30, 2004
Yes:
http://www.mitsuigold.com/
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column53/

They are available from several sources "on line" … but *none* of my local suppliers carry any kind of Archival CD-R disks.

"David Magda" <dmagda+> wrote in message
Clyde writes:

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

Is there a particular brand or manufacturer for these "’gold’ CDs"? I know some people who are running low on the old Kodak gold-on-gold ones and would be interested in what’s available.

Thanks for any info.


David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. — Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
G
ggull
Dec 30, 2004
"formerly known as ‘cat arranger’" wrote
….
Good advice, it seems to me.
Thanks. I’ve been toying with this issue (on a larger scale, several massive photo albums and a few boxes of prints, slides, etc.) for a couple of years.
With the plummeting costs of disk drives
($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry’s last weekend) you can’t go wrong anyway and you can
buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X.
Yeah, I got a 250G SATA at compusa a couple of weeks ago for $125 :-). But for the OP’s purposes, both because he might want something to store off-computer, even off-site, and because he sounds maybe not too technically sophisticated, a plug’n’play external drive might be better, though more expensive.

The idea of burning to DVD is good and makes for a smaller stack of discs. (or in a year or two when dual layer blanks get realistically priced, even better) But I wonder what the archival quality relative to good CDRs is?
C
Clyde
Dec 30, 2004
David Magda wrote:
Clyde writes:

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

Is there a particular brand or manufacturer for these "’gold’ CDs"? I know some people who are running low on the old Kodak gold-on-gold ones and would be interested in what’s available.

Thanks for any info.

Yes, MAM-A formerly Mitsui. I buy mine here:
http://www.inkjetart.com/mitsui/index.html

Clyde
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Dec 30, 2004
"ggull" wrote in message
: "formerly known as ‘cat arranger’"
wrote
: …
: >
: > Good advice, it seems to me.
: Thanks. I’ve been toying with this issue (on a larger scale, several massive
: photo albums and a few boxes of prints, slides, etc.) for a couple of years.
: > With the plummeting costs of disk drives
: > ($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry’s last weekend) you can’t go wrong anyway and
: > you can
: > buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X. : Yeah, I got a 250G SATA at compusa a couple of weeks ago for $125 :-). : But for the OP’s purposes, both because he might want something to store : off-computer, even off-site, and because he sounds maybe not too technically
: sophisticated, a plug’n’play external drive might be better, though more : expensive.
:
: The idea of burning to DVD is good and makes for a smaller stack of discs. : (or in a year or two when dual layer blanks get realistically priced, even : better) But I wonder what the archival quality relative to good CDRs is?

There is allegedly a lot of error correction in DVDs but I wonder about archival properties too and about CD too.
I imagine we will be buying standalone disk dupers for our archives as media gets better but I wouldn’t be surprised if several companies announce that their disks are subject to deterioration and go out of business in the not too distant future.
C
Clyde
Dec 31, 2004
formerly known as ‘cat arranger’ wrote:
"ggull" wrote in message
: "formerly known as ‘cat arranger’"
wrote
: …
: >
: > Good advice, it seems to me.
: Thanks. I’ve been toying with this issue (on a larger scale, several massive
: photo albums and a few boxes of prints, slides, etc.) for a couple of years.
: > With the plummeting costs of disk drives
: > ($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry’s last weekend) you can’t go wrong anyway and
: > you can
: > buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X. : Yeah, I got a 250G SATA at compusa a couple of weeks ago for $125 :-). : But for the OP’s purposes, both because he might want something to store : off-computer, even off-site, and because he sounds maybe not too technically
: sophisticated, a plug’n’play external drive might be better, though more : expensive.
:
: The idea of burning to DVD is good and makes for a smaller stack of discs. : (or in a year or two when dual layer blanks get realistically priced, even : better) But I wonder what the archival quality relative to good CDRs is?
There is allegedly a lot of error correction in DVDs but I wonder about archival properties too and about CD too.
I imagine we will be buying standalone disk dupers for our archives as media gets better but I wouldn’t be surprised if several companies announce that their disks are subject to deterioration and go out of business in the not too distant future.

If you are looking for the perfect archival method, there isn’t one. Nothing we have today will last forever or guaranteed to be readable by future technology. Part of that problem lies in the fact that we are very bad at predicting the future, particularly in the area of technology.

So, ignore it. If you can’t do anything about it, don’t. The best that we can do is, well – that best that we can do. So, pick the best archival technology we have today and use it. If things change in the future, change with it. You don’t really have a choice.

From my research, the "gold" CD-R disks are the best that I can find. I save in TIFF, JPEG 2000 (lossless), and PSD. I figure those formats will be around for as long as any and they are lossless. If things change, I have a little archive updating project. Then again, I expect that to happen.

Clyde
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Jan 1, 2005
"Clyde" wrote in message
: formerly known as ‘cat arranger’ wrote:
: > "ggull" wrote in message
: > : > : "formerly known as ‘cat arranger’"
: > wrote
: > : …
: > : >
: > : > Good advice, it seems to me.
: > : Thanks. I’ve been toying with this issue (on a larger scale, several : > massive
: > : photo albums and a few boxes of prints, slides, etc.) for a couple of : > years.
: > : > With the plummeting costs of disk drives
: > : > ($100 for 250G Maxtor at Fry’s last weekend) you can’t go wrong anyway
: > and
: > : > you can
: > : > buy a good DVD burner, real good Lite-on, for $100 8X. : > : Yeah, I got a 250G SATA at compusa a couple of weeks ago for $125 :-). : > : But for the OP’s purposes, both because he might want something to store
: > : off-computer, even off-site, and because he sounds maybe not too : > technically
: > : sophisticated, a plug’n’play external drive might be better, though more
: > : expensive.
: > :
: > : The idea of burning to DVD is good and makes for a smaller stack of discs.
: > : (or in a year or two when dual layer blanks get realistically priced, even
: > : better) But I wonder what the archival quality relative to good CDRs is?
: >
: > There is allegedly a lot of error correction in DVDs but I : > wonder about archival properties too and about CD too. : > I imagine we will be buying standalone disk dupers for our : > archives as media gets better but I wouldn’t be surprised if : > several companies announce that their disks are subject to : > deterioration and go out of business in the not too distant : > future.
: >
:
: If you are looking for the perfect archival method, there isn’t one. : Nothing we have today will last forever or guaranteed to be readable by : future technology. Part of that problem lies in the fact that we are : very bad at predicting the future, particularly in the area of technology. :
: So, ignore it. If you can’t do anything about it, don’t. The best that : we can do is, well – that best that we can do. So, pick the best : archival technology we have today and use it. If things change in the : future, change with it. You don’t really have a choice. :
: From my research, the "gold" CD-R disks are the best that I can find. I : save in TIFF, JPEG 2000 (lossless), and PSD. I figure those formats will : be around for as long as any and they are lossless. If things change, I : have a little archive updating project. Then again, I expect that to happen.
:
: Clyde

It might that DVDs are better than CDs as they have more error correction allegedly 10 times although I haven’t been able to find a source.
C
crazyfly
Jan 3, 2005
"Nikko" wrote in
news::

I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred family photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning them would make the answer different than if I was taking the photos myself with a digital camera.

I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s some compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG files? I’m unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this point, I’m just scanning them so my family has copies in case something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d also welcome pointers from anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if there’s anything you found out later that you wish you had known when you started process.

Thanks again for any help you can provide.

I you had said"I’m planning on scanning a bunch of pictures of my garden and…" then I would say jpeg. As you are scannig family photos presumably for the purpose of archiving there is no question TIFF. You also want to be sure and scan 4X6 photos at 600 PPI (your scanner may say "D"PI). Best way to explain why is to have you do a comparison. Scan the same pictur at 300 and 600, put them side by side in photoshop and magnify both to 400%, now 1000%. See the huge quality differenc? Now do the same thing at the sam res both in TIFF and JPEG, see the huge difference? If you are going to do any editing to them like fixing casts or sharpening or taking out scratches, that will degrade the quality. best to start with the best quality you can get and then burn them to cd or dvd. Now you don’t have to worry about the size and whenever you want to print one you can pop in the cd. Depending on you computer and how your page/scratch files are set up (Ihave a two gig partition on a seperate hard drive set up for photshops scratch) photo shop can resonably handle images of 125-150megs in size. Bottom line is if your doing 2 or3 hundred photos you probably only want to do it once so do it right the first time. One last thing, check your scanners web site and find out wahat is th maximum optical resolution. That will be as high as you want to go. Using interpolation on photsos is not a good idea. O.K. one more thing, scan 35mm negs at at least 1200 PPI, I scan mine at 2400. Hope this helps.
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Jan 4, 2005
"crazyfly" wrote in message
: "Nikko" wrote in
: news::
:
: > I’m about to start the process of scanning/archiving several hundred : > family photos (most of which are black and white, should that make a : > difference). I’m trying to figure out what is the best format to save : > them in, JPEG or TIFF. I don’t know if the fact that I’m scanning : > them would make the answer different than if I was taking the photos : > myself with a digital camera.
: >
: > I see that TIFF files are far larger than JPEGs, so I assume there’s : > some compression going on with the latter. I’m sure there’s some sort : > of trade-off involved. What do I give up by storing them as JPEG : > files? I’m unlikely to want to edit or play around with these photos : > much, though I supposed that could change down the line. At this : > point, I’m just scanning them so my family has copies in case : > something happens to the originals. Any ideas as to the pros/cons of : > TIFF/JPEG would be much appreciated. I’d also welcome pointers from : > anyone who has attempted a similar project. Mostly wondering if : > there’s anything you found out later that you wish you had known when : > you started process.
: >
: > Thanks again for any help you can provide.
: >
: >
:
: I you had said"I’m planning on scanning a bunch of pictures of my garden : and…" then I would say jpeg. As you are scannig family photos : presumably for the purpose of archiving there is no question TIFF. You : also want to be sure and scan 4X6 photos at 600 PPI (your scanner may : say "D"PI). Best way to explain why is to have you do a comparison. Scan : the same pictur at 300 and 600, put them side by side in photoshop and : magnify both to 400%, now 1000%. See the huge quality differenc? Now do : the same thing at the sam res both in TIFF and JPEG, see the huge : difference? If you are going to do any editing to them like fixing casts : or sharpening or taking out scratches, that will degrade the quality. : best to start with the best quality you can get and then burn them to cd : or dvd. Now you don’t have to worry about the size and whenever you want : to print one you can pop in the cd. Depending on you computer and how : your page/scratch files are set up (Ihave a two gig partition on a : seperate hard drive set up for photshops scratch) photo shop can : resonably handle images of 125-150megs in size. Bottom line is if your : doing 2 or3 hundred photos you probably only want to do it once so do it : right the first time. One last thing, check your scanners web site and : find out wahat is th maximum optical resolution. That will be as high as : you want to go. Using interpolation on photsos is not a good idea. O.K. : one more thing, scan 35mm negs at at least 1200 PPI, I scan mine at : 2400. Hope this helps.

Also scan at 300, 600 and higher, then enlarge the smaller resolution and see if Photoshop’s bicubic interpolation is better than the higher resolution
scans. This would mean that the scanner is doing interpolation and not actual optical, and as Pleadge suggested, experiment…
L
larrylook
Jan 16, 2005
"Clyde" wrote in message
David Magda wrote:
"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

I’m with you. How do we know that other formats (not only JPEG2000) couldn’t die out years from now? We don’t. I think the files are less than half the size of tiffs. PSE3 supports it. Hopefully it will gain in popularity.

Yeah, it’s not widely used, but my Photoshop CS reads it. It likely will continue to read it for decades in the future. Besides, I’m not likely to even need it either.

Clyde
C
Corey
Jan 16, 2005
"larrylook" wrote in message
"Clyde" wrote in message
David Magda wrote:
"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

I’m with you. How do we know that other formats (not only JPEG2000) couldn’t die out years from now? We don’t. I think the files are less
than
half the size of tiffs. PSE3 supports it. Hopefully it will gain in popularity.

Yeah, it’s not widely used, but my Photoshop CS reads it. It likely will continue to read it for decades in the future. Besides, I’m not likely to even need it either.

Clyde

The JPG2000 are reputed to be lossless, but I’m not sure if that is all the time or if the ability exists only at certain levels of compression. The ‘wavelet transform method of compression is far superior to standard JPG compression allowing for far greater compression with far superior results.

See: http://tinyurl.com/5ojqv for visual comparisons

or

http://tinyurl.com/3wdn2 for technical info.

Peadge 🙂
X
Xalinai
Jan 16, 2005
larrylook wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message
David Magda wrote:
"Peadge" writes:

JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in an image editing program will further deteriorate the image.

Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these
‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG standard I would think.

I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a lossless file.

I’m with you. How do we know that other formats (not only JPEG2000) couldn’t die out years from now? We don’t. I think the files are less than half the size of tiffs. PSE3 supports it. Hopefully it will gain in popularity.

The sheer number of people using a format will protect it from dying for a long time. So readers for JPG (standard, no exotic options), Tiff, and GIF will be available for the longest time – but GIF is not an option for archiving images. PNG and JPG are open standards, so it will be possible to re-create a legal viewer at any time, TIFF is at least a published standard so there might be a legal but no technical reason not to write a viewer.

I’d rather not use a format for archiving that still has to become popular – archiving and bets on technology trends don’t go together very well.

Yeah, it’s not widely used, but my Photoshop CS reads it. It likely will continue to read it for decades in the future. Besides, I’m not likely to even need it either.

Clyde

Michael
C
Clyde
Jan 17, 2005
Peadge wrote:
The JPG2000 are reputed to be lossless, but I’m not sure if that is all the time or if the ability exists only at certain levels of compression. The ‘wavelet transform method of compression is far superior to standard JPG compression allowing for far greater compression with far superior results.
See: http://tinyurl.com/5ojqv for visual comparisons

or

http://tinyurl.com/3wdn2 for technical info.

Peadge 🙂

JPEG2000 specs have lossless and lossy standards. It’s an option. You can save them either way. So, the lossless really is lossless. Yes, the lossy compression in JPEG2000 is better than that of standard JPEG.

Clyde
G
goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM
Jan 17, 2005
And even a small number of people caught with a discarded format will have converters, IMO. Is there a single format from all of the time computers have been used that is not translatable into a modern format. It just won’t happen.

"Xalinai" wrote in message
: larrylook wrote:
:
: >
: > "Clyde" wrote in message
: > : > > David Magda wrote:
: > > > "Peadge" writes:
: > > >
: > > >
: > > > > JPEGs are "lossy" meaning they and are compressed by selective : > > > > discarding information. JPEG compression often introduces : > > > > artifacts into the picture that weren’t there originally. JPEG : > > > > format supports CMYK, RGB, and Grayscale color modes, and does : > > > > not support alpha channels. Repeatedly saving JPEGs as JPEGs in : > > > > an image editing program will further deteriorate the image. : > > >
: > > >
: > > > Doesn’t the new JPEG2000 standard fix some of these : > > > ‘defficiencies’? Depending on the software the OP is using, : > > > would it be an alternative? I’m not sure how it compares to TIFF, : > > > but it would have more capabilities than the ‘original’ JPEG : > > > standard I would think.
: > > >
: > >
: > > I save all my completed wedding photos on a "gold" CDs in JPEG2000 : > > format with lossless compression. It’s the smallest I can make a : > > lossless file.
: >
: > I’m with you. How do we know that other formats (not only JPEG2000) : > couldn’t die out years from now? We don’t. I think the files are : > less than half the size of tiffs. PSE3 supports it. Hopefully it : > will gain in popularity.
:
: The sheer number of people using a format will protect it from dying : for a long time. So readers for JPG (standard, no exotic options), : Tiff, and GIF will be available for the longest time – but GIF is not : an option for archiving images. PNG and JPG are open standards, so it : will be possible to re-create a legal viewer at any time, TIFF is at : least a published standard so there might be a legal but no technical : reason not to write a viewer.
:
: I’d rather not use a format for archiving that still has to become : popular – archiving and bets on technology trends don’t go together : very well.
:
:
: > > Yeah, it’s not widely used, but my Photoshop CS reads it. It likely : > > will continue to read it for decades in the future. Besides, I’m : > > not likely to even need it either.
: > >
: > > Clyde
:
: Michael
DM
David Magda
Jan 20, 2005
"formerly known as ‘cat arranger’" writes:

And even a small number of people caught with a discarded format will have converters, IMO. Is there a single format from all of the time computers have been used that is not translatable into a modern format. It just won’t happen.

There are open source C libraries for just about every image format out there.


David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. — Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections