After images are converted from RAW, what is the best format to save the image. I have always used Jpg in the past, but there seems to be a lot of articles talking about TIFF. I know TIFF is larger and less compressed, what about PSD?
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
at least you can always make a tiff into a jpeg if need be, because if you compress a jpeg too much youll see the loss and without the original you cant get it back.
PSD: Well, if you’re using anything other than a flattened file.
The compression provided by PSD and LZW is not lossy, but it works best with contiguous or reoccuring colors in an image. IE, a busy photograph will not compress as well as with these formats as an identically sized/DPI image of a logo on a white background. You may find that many images compress very little.
Also on slower machines that very large files (100+ mb) open much slower from LZW as compared to native PSD.
I would save images as .psd while I´m working on those , ( then I want save and opening times as short as possible , and I don`t care about disc space )
Deliver uncompressed flattened TIFFs to customer ( so they know they get a lot of KB for their $ ) Uncompressed TIFF is the most widely / easiest read image format . And easiest to mount in layout programs ( the other one is EPS )
At last before I archive those to DVDs , I resave .psd to ZIP compressed TIFFs gaining sometimes 50 % disc space , and I can squeeze more stuff on one DVD . The price of this compression scheme is much longer save / opening times .
Zip compression can be from CS applied also to layered documents … ( select ZIP compression for layers in the TIFF Dialog Box )
..psd format can be usefull for images with transparency and customers working in In Design that will recognize it .
JPEG s only strong point is small file size , I would only use it while emailing lowres comps, some customers want also a copy of delivered image in a form that is easy to deliver through email .
Save the RAW originals as off site archives. Not psd or tiff or jpeg.
I use essentially 100% Adobe graphics apps, so for working image files my preference is psd format.
Also, don’t hestitate to include jpeg as a possible file choice for working (_not_ archival or backup) files. When saved at maximum resolution jpeg data loss usually is not visually detectable. And, every application on every computer can read jpegs. I never allow jpeg into the workflow of any image that might someday be used for prints larger than 4×6, but there are plenty of instances (e.g. documentation, websites, email, etc.) where an image has some utility but clearly will never be appropriate for large print quality usage. In those instances saving as a maximum resolution jpeg can be appropriate. Low resolution jpeg is often awful and is not recommended, but after a dozen maximum resolution jpeg saves well shot images typically show neglible loss.
Of course Allen is right , saving RAW as RAW is obvious . Hopefully you can get better images from your RAW files in some year when software will be improved .
There isn’t much more that I can add other than echo what has been said. Since electronic storage closets are dirt cheap and getting cheaper regularly, archive the original untouched RAW files. For basic working files, convert to PSD. Then save final as flattened, uncompressed TIFF or EPS for print output. Yes, it’s true that highest quality JPGs have virtually no loss. But the format IS more and more lossy, every time you save and close the file. I’d reserve JPG for Web graphics, emailing family snapshots, low-res client approvals, etc.
I’ve also been archiving important files in several other formats as well as RAW – a copy of any final, finished, edited files in both jpeg and psd format, and a copy of the converted but unedited file, best I can get it with current conversion technology, as a 16 bit Tiff. Canon Raw for my particular camera is obsolete technology (the camera is already discontinued). As it’s a proprietary format I have to rely on the nice people at Adobe to continue to support it in the RAW converter. Who knows how long they will be happy to do that, with new cameras coming out every week? So while I am keeping the RAW files, I’m also keeping the non-proprietary formats too. And I’ve got hard copy print outs of the best ones too…
Make a quality Epson SP print from a quality image file.
Ten times, open and save the file as a max (12) resolution JPEG.
Print it again.
What do your eyes comparing the 2 prints tell you? Better still, make several prints, have someone else shuffle them, and then pick out the JPEGs. Not very elastic at all in my tests.
Everyone knows that JPEG is technically not a lossless compression algoritm, but that does not make the format per se unacceptable for many uses. If you perform the test above on a good image JPEG’s characteristic "virtually no loss" becomes more than just words.
Note that I do not suggest using JPEG for high res image storage or professional image submission (however when necessary a JPEG submission need not be the end of the world). And I did specify quality originals, and did not suggest monitor-based 1600% comparisons, which indeed will show jpeg artifacts (but who cares).
My point is that JPEG properly used can be very useful and "virtually lossless." It is wrong to denigrate JPEG as a format just because technically it is not lossless.
————————————————
Susan-
Your comments about future RAW support make a lot of sense. Some vendors routinely allow the functionality of older versions to become irrevocably obsolete.
Frankly, I’m utterly puzzled by your post. I even had to go back and read what in my post had prompted you to write yours.
Why would I even bother to try what you suggest? Excuse the blunt expression, but that would be utterly idiotic of me. I have absolutely no need for JPEGs whatsoever. I literally scratched my head.
I once had a perfectly good scan of a 6×9 negative (I’ve mentioned this before) of an architectural shot in which large green, orange, yellow and blue areas of color met (grass and large tropical plants, roof, walls, sky). The TIFF and PSD files were excellent. I made a duplicate copy of the original TIFF file, opened it, saved it as a highest quality JPEG, and artifacts were apparent and obvious.
I couldn’t care less about the argument that these artifacts would have been "virtually" impossible to tell in print. They are there. Period. Others may have better eyes than I (or you) do. Why mess around with a darned JPEG when I don’t need it? Masochism?
Therefore my assertion that it’s a question of how elastic and flexible your definition of "virtually" is. Good enough for you, but not good enough for me.
If you resave a JPEG with no changes, using the same compression settings that created it, a well-behaved JPEG codec won’t introduce any further loss. Of course, it’s something of a pointless exercise, since you’d be as well just closing the file without saving.
Photoshop’s JPEG codec is not particularly well-behaved in this respect….
Camera-created JPEGs use custom codecs designed specifically for the camera. As a result, they’re a good deal less fragile than JPEGs created in Photoshop.
Raw is certainly preferable, but it’s impractical for people whose day’s shoot is 5,000-7,000 images rather than 500-700the processing time will kill any chance they have of making money. Fine JPEG from one of today’s cameras is pretty damn good providing you get everything right in the camera.
I hear ya Bruce. If I take one hour to shoot pictures in raw, it can take me three hours to process them… especially if I keep them large. I need that G5!
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
