A Question of File Types and Compression

[MarkW]

I am currently keeping a lot of my image files as either RAW (if they wer taken that way) or in 16 bit TIFF (uncompressed) but finding that a 15Mb image file when coverted to uncompressed TIFF is about 4 times larger - 60Mb . At these sizes the images are rapidly draining my storage resources even though I have only just dedicated a Terabyte external HDD just for some of my most recent photography.

I realise that there are compressions available for TIFF but I don't know enough about them to risk subjecting the images to the process. I really do want to maintain a 16 bit quality in the images.

What format do most people keep their images in?

Please note - before you say JPEG, I wont use any compression format that will create a loss of image quality and JPEG does just that. So if its JPEG that you use that fine but no need for a reply.

[brindyman]

Please note - before you say JPEG, I wont use any compression format that will create a loss of image quality and JPEG does just that. So if its JPEG that you use that fine but no need for a reply.

JPEG works by taking out bits of the picture that the naked eye wouldnt recognise hense the smaller size than something compared to a bmp or a tiff.....hense then a jpeg is a lossy format and tiff and bmp are lossess meaning they retain all their information.

Theirs nothing against storing your photos in jpeg in my opinion.......how ever if you want to print them i would also recommend printing TIFF files as they seem to come out better on paper.

Hope that helps

Ben

[MarkW]

JPEG works by taking out bits of the picture that the naked eye wouldnt recognise hense the smaller size than something compared to a bmp or a tiff.....hense then a jpeg is a lossy format and tiff and bmp are lossess meaning they retain all their information.

Theirs nothing against storing your photos in jpeg in my opinion.......how ever if you want to print them i would also recommend printing TIFF files as they seem to come out better on paper.

Hope that helps

Ben

Ben
JPEG takes out the transitional bits ie where it originally was 256 graduations of colour change this is now down to 16 changes (I think - 8 bit vs 16 bit) and whilst you might get away with it on a screen, my only purpose of taking images is to end up with an album full of "photos".

What is worse is every time I make an alteration, the JPEG image is recompressed thus loosing more and more data each time. No JPEG is not a consideration at any time.

You can always make an extra JPEG image (save as type) if you need that format say for the net or distribution to others after you finish making alterations to the original but you need to keep the original in the best possible format available and thats not JPEG.

[Desertraptor]

The eye can detect many more shades than your screen can display. So why display them?
I used to process TIFF and save then also save a copy as jpeg for the net. Now though I just save the published image as a jpeg and keep all RAWS on dvd

[brindyman]

The eye can detect many more shades than your screen can display. So why display them?
I used to process TIFF and save then also save a copy as jpeg for the net. Now though I just save the published image as a jpeg and keep all RAWS on dvd

thats not a bad idea all be putting them on blu ray soon

the way hard drives are going now they are getting so cheap its ridiculous you can pick up a good 500 gig hard drive for like $120

[Desertraptor]

Pioneer Blu-Ray at MSY now $309

[Seesee]

My percieved extra good pix { rare } I keep in both full resolution jpeg and RAW fgor later processing if I want to, anything else I just keep in jpeg at full resolution. Tiff as mentioned are huge files !!!, not necesary I think and as a hobbyist photographer I need to do nothing more. Despite storage being cheap I dont want squillions of pictures to have to sort through anyway, so now I delete most of mine now except the best.