# TIFF or JPeg for storage



## te4o (Jan 31, 2012)

I shoot in RAW almost always, import, store and backup in Aperture and do PP in NIK or PS. The last two do save in TIFF and this multiplies the file size. 
Do you convert your PP tiff files back in jpeg for storage or not? Is there a lot of printing info lost, i.e. is it better to print from the tiff than from jpeg?
I always keep the RAW masters separately, so a second look and PP is possible. 
Thanks for your advice!


----------



## xROELOFx (Jan 31, 2012)

This is my little workflow when processing photos.

I also shoot in RAW (Adobe RGB color space) and backup the original RAW files on a seperate external HDD. I then import the RAW files in Lightroom, delete the not so good photos and tweak the other photos if necessary. I set flags on the good photos and export them as JPG @ 300 pixels/inch.

If needed, I open and edit the exported JPGs in Photoshop and save them as a PSD file. This way I can always trace my actions back in Photoshop and extra tweak the photo in a later time when needed (if I for example learn a new PS trick). I always save a copy of these images as JPG on highest quality and in Adobe RGB color space. The PSDs and Lightroom catalog files are backed up again on another HDD.

The most recent JPG version of the photo is the final photo. It depends on the wishes of the client if I send the final photo, or make the final photo web ready (by lowering the dimensions and lowering the resolution to 90 pixels/inch).

So far, I haven't used the TIFF format at all. But most of my photos are for use on websites and not for printed media like magazines etc.
I'm pretty curious how others work and their use of TIFF images though.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Jan 31, 2012)

yeah tiff is better for printing. jpg would be better for web use.


----------



## mhvogel.de (Jan 31, 2012)

My storage-system
(all on different HDD, no DVD-backup)
a) RAW
b) TIFF
c) JPEG

If I would have to decide between TIFF and JPEG, TIFF would be my chioce though I've experienced that this format is more stable vs. read-/write-errors, both of HD and optical media. (please see attached sample of a HD read/write-damaged JPEG). I've never had any issues like this with TIFF.

Asuming that you do the editing itself in RAW or TIFF (JPEG would decrease the photo-quality with every time you safe the file) I do not see a critical/visible tiff/jpeg difference in quality at least for prints up to 20x30cm (based on my equipment: 5DII...).


----------



## pakosouthpark (Jan 31, 2012)

mhvogel.de said:


> I've never had any issues like this with TIFF.



kinda cool effect


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 31, 2012)

I keep the RAW file and after that save the photoshop file.


----------



## xROELOFx (Jan 31, 2012)

pakosouthpark said:


> mhvogel.de said:
> 
> 
> > I've never had any issues like this with TIFF.
> ...


yeah, it looks like a hologram of an OS program window


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 31, 2012)

My workflow is pretty close to resembling xROELOFx's.


shoot in RAW
move files to computer HD
backup to external HD
adjust selected RAW images as needed
edit in Photoshop as needed (whenever possible, edits are kept to separate layers)
save as PSD
move folder of files to external HD
delete initial backup on external HD

Never use TIFF unless doing prints. And even then, all I'll do is export to TIFF for the customer. I won't keep the TIFF exports because I'll have the RAW and PSD files. No need for the extra space usage. My PSD files end up being big enough on their own.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 31, 2012)

Raw files are basically Tiff files with a wrapper that contains extra information. I print from the raw file in lightroom, never from a jpeg. If I edit in Photoshop, I export as a tiff with profoto colorspace and import the edited version backinto lightroom. Then, I keep both. I save jpegs of the chosen images for upload to my website, otherwise. I backup the original cr2 files and the lightroom catalog. I also let Adobe create a sidecar file with the edit settings for each raw image.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm writing this with my "computer guy" hat on.

TIFF is largely obsolete, and you should avoid it, generally-speaking. Technically it has no advantages over RAW or PSD. I'll give one exception at the end.

RAW: Your RAW file represents the full information from the image capture, and this possibly can never be reproduced exactly. RAW files are your jewels.

PSD: These represent all the post-production work you have done to make the original capture conform to your vision. While you could reproduce this work, it would take time and effort. You should keep those PSD's in which you have invested a lot of effort.

JPEG: JPEG is largely an "output" format. It loses a significant amount of your original capture. For a photographer, save JPEG's as a convenience if you expect to need to send them out again for general use.

Exception on TIFF's: This format has been around a long time and has a very regular structure. My *guess* is that 50 years from now, it'll be easier to import or use an uncompressed TIFF than any of the above formats. (Think phonograph records: even after needles are no longer made, they can still be played with lasers) For those rare, no, for those *extremely rare*, very valuable photos that could be important in 50 years, keep them *also *in TIFF.


----------



## te4o (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanx for the replies:
I understand that TIFF is not a common format for use. I agree with all commentators.
BUT:
If you'd be using Aperture like I do, you'd notice that exporting for an External Editor creates either a TIFF file or a PSD file (8 or 16 bit, but no-one serious uses the 8 bit any more nowadays). No matter if you PP in Photoshop or in NIK you are working with either PSD or TIFF. They have BOTH NEARLY THE SAME FILE SIZE! If you save your work in tiff/psd you create a 'blown out' file (like my 40D makes a RAW.CR2 at 11 MBite and the PSD/or TIFF have around 51 MB). Even more so with the 21-25 MB 5D2 files - they jump to 100 MB PSD/TIFF. If I do a panorama with 30 shots it goes in the area of 1 GB per single output... But this is a second topic. 
This is why I am asking: how do you keep the SIZE of your post-processed shots within at least the range of a RAW file, i.e. 20-25 MB. 

BTW, I do 95% of my work in NIK, so I rely on the external editoring from Aperture. 
Is Lightroom different in managing the external editors? And how?

There are recent non-expert opinions against PSD (http://www.philbertphotography.com/blog/tiff-vs-psd-in-lightroom).
There are recent views FOR TIFF (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=39585535) .
Even if TIFF is reported up to 50% larger than PSD the speed of processing is 5 times that of PSD in CS5 (http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?10428-PSD-vs-TIF) .

I use a maxed out 6 core Mac Pro 2010 with a fast striped RAID too and 8 TB of disk space but someday it will hit the limit too (it's not used solely for photography but video&TV as well and the file sizes there are significantly higher) 
So, last question: do you ZIP or somehow compress your PSD / TIFF files for storage? 
See, the end of the workflow is not unified - we are all impressed by what the recently developed software can do to our native RAWs and at least speaking for myself I don't know how to finalize my workflow properly. At present I just keep the RAWs AND the TIFFs. Until there is some real advice. 
Thanks!
Happy Waiting ! 
BTW, has someone tried to do a stitch and PP it with a 36 MP file (MF) ? My machine chokes with the 21MP already... I don't know if our computing gear is really ready for postprocessing 36 MP 16 bit files. Storage is not an issue but really advanced postprocessing will be!


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2012)

te4o said:


> This is why I am asking: how do you keep the SIZE of your post-processed shots within at least the range of a RAW file, i.e. 20-25 MB.



Unfortunately, I think the answer may be "you can't." You could try compressing PSD's or groups of PSD's using a ZIP tool of some kind. I'm not aware of any lossless image compression format in common use. (JPEG2000 does it, but it's not so common, and I can't claim to be very familiar with that format) For a 5D2 you have 21megapixels at 16-bits x 3 channels (six bytes) each. That's just a lot of data -- no way around it. And for a pano with 30 images? Huge. You need to compress it somehow, and you have two choices: lossy or lossless. JPEG does lossy compression. Only you can decide if that's acceptable. For lossless compression you might try 7Zip. From my perspective, disk space is still dirt cheap, even with the price-gouging after the Thailand flooding. I'd keep the RAW's and PSD's, plus those JPEG's I planned to send out for printing, posting, emailing, etc. I'd either try lossless compression or I'd suck it up and buy disk space. But it's your call on what's important to you.

Sorry I can't be more helpful. If it makes you feel any better, the digital video guys have it worse than us still photographers.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 1, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> I'm writing this with my "computer guy" hat on.
> 
> TIFF is largely obsolete, and you should avoid it, generally-speaking. Technically it has no advantages over RAW or PSD. I'll give one exception at the end.
> 
> ...



I think TIFF is here to stay, as it is an open standard, easy to add to image processing software via libtiff, already included in many such softwares, is lossless, and has 16 bit support in both color & greyscale. There's nothing else in that not so niche corner.

The day I see CR2 support fading, I'm going to convert all my photos to TIFF, not because I think each and every one of them is very valuable, but my disk is my photo album, disk space is cheap, and I hope in two generations my family would enjoy that photo album as much as my cousins & me enjoy our grandparents'.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I think TIFF is here to stay, as it is an open standard, easy to add to image processing software via libtiff, already included in many such softwares, is lossless, and has 16 bit support in both color & greyscale. There's nothing else in that not so niche corner.



I don't disagree that it'll be around, but it's not that simple. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tif. It's really more of a container format, with certain baseline requirements. Since there are many variations of TIF files, high compatibility is likely restricted to the baseline structures, which I believe are just bitmaps. From the article: "_Baseline TIFF_. The Baseline TIFF does not include layers, or compression with JPEG or LZW." This is a weak format for modern photography.



> The day I see CR2 support fading, I'm going to convert all my photos to TIFF



Hopefully, there will be better options than TIF, maybe a version of DNG will catch on at some point, or PSD with lossless compression. Sure, baseline TIF will be around, and will be supported, but may not be the best solution. Also, TIF contains less information than CR2.

This is the same problem as in other areas of computing: data formats evolve and create obsolete files. Fortunately for us, so long as we keep our files in managed libraries like LightRoom, we'll probably have the option to migrate the whole thing to the newest/bestest format in one command.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 1, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Hopefully, there will be better options than TIF, maybe a version of DNG will catch on at some point, or PSD with lossless compression. Sure, baseline TIF will be around, and will be supported, but may not be the best solution. Also, TIF contains less information than CR2.
> 
> This is the same problem as in other areas of computing: data formats evolve and create obsolete files. Fortunately for us, so long as we keep our files in managed libraries like LightRoom, we'll probably have the option to migrate the whole thing to the newest/bestest format in one command.



TIFF probably contain less info than CR2, as it wasn't designed to serve as raw format, but rather as a format to keep image data from scanners & faxes. IMHO, TIFF is more likely to be readable in the far future, so it would be a case of something is better than nothing.

I'm not a fan of TIFF, and share your hope that something better than TIFF will become, at least for the purposes we're talking about, an industry standard. DNG seems to do a good job, and is half way there, so why not?


----------



## JR (Feb 1, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I'm not a fan of TIFF, and share your hope that something better than TIFF will become, at least for the purposes we're talking about, an industry standard. DNG seems to do a good job, and is half way there, so why not?



I personally only store my files in DNG as I use Lightroom. The exception to this are the PSD file that I create when retouching with PS, and the occasional TIFF file when I use other thrid party software like Image Portraiture.

- always make and keep a copy of the original CR2 file in a seperate hard disk
- My main library uses DNG file and I also keep a seperate copy of my DNG file on a seperate hard disk
- finally I copy all my DNG, PSD or TIFF from my Lightroom catalogue into Blur Ray disks

I only use JPEG when I need to send picture by emails...

Jacques


----------



## bycostello (Feb 1, 2012)

all depends what you want the images for... personal use i'd say jpeg... pro use i'd keep the raw file..


----------



## daveheinzel (Feb 1, 2012)

After years of searching for the right workflow for me, here's what I've been doing for a long time:

1) Shoot everything in RAW (with a rare exception of shooting in JPG in some cases)
2) Import to Aperture
3) Back up memory card(s) to external hard drive
4) Set aside memory card(s) and don't use until project is complete
5) Editing passes (each step usually done separately):
a) 1 star for images that I want to save (then I delete non-starred images from the Aperture project)
b) 2 stars for images that are probably keepers
c) 3 stars for the best images
d) I flag all images that I want to send to Photoshop to edit (usually not many)
6) I export all flagged images as PS files, edit in PS and import back into Aperture
7) Once project is finalized, I export all images to full-size JPGs for long-term storage on two separate external hard drives and clean out the Aperture project.

After several months, I delete the memory card backups, leaving me with only a double set of backed-up JPGs. I do NOT save RAW, PSD or TIFF files for the long term. I use WHCC for prints, and they print from JPGs. I couldn't be happier with the print quality.

For me, the benefit of RAW is to allow greater flexibility in post-processing. Once my post-processing is done, I don't want the burden of storing that much data. Not only does it cost substantially more, but it takes more time to transfer the files. And it means more drives to manage. And for what? The obscure chance that a client will have me change an image from a completed project in a way that requires the extra latitude that a RAW image would provide? In my case, that just doesn't make much sense.

That said, I do, on occasion, save an image in RAW if it's truly exceptional.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

Remember, as jpegs, even saved with a compression setting of 10 (little compression), it is what it is, compressed. You may be losing some, albeit, minimal information and also jpegs also flatten, so if you use photoshop or lightroom or such and make a lot of layers, jpegs will flatten it all. You will be able to save more jpegs than you will tiff, but that is the tradeoff... Tiff, unlike what others have said, is not an obsolete file type, however, it isn't as well packaged as lets say a psd or dng. The problems with psd or dng, unless you have a program that can read it, you may not be able to show it or work with it on another computer. That isn't as vital as it was in the past, but if you have clients with older windows machines and you have psd files and hope to show them your images, they may not be able to open them. Tiffs are not compressed, can be opened on windows and macs, even without photoshop or another image editing program installed on it, especially on older systems. When I shoot for clients, unless i know they have photoshop, I only give them Tiff's and Jpegs of my files when I'm done with them. Tiff for the full sized and a smaller jpeg so they can throw it on the web, proof, or do whatever with. If money and space isn't an issue, save in tiff or psd (if it's only for you), or if space is an issue, save in the highest jpg possible and save up for a new bigger HD.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't own a mass of storage cards - enough for a god days shooting (about 1500 images if needed).

All images imported to LR where they are converted to DNG.
At the same time, a copy of all original RAW files are saved to EHD which is backed up to a second EHD via Chronosync.
The DNG files sit on the main computer and are rated and deleted if not considered worth processing. These are backed up to the EHD used for Time Machine back ups.
Processed images are then saved to another EHD which is also backed up. They are backed up as TIFF, HR Jpeg and LR Jpeg. But rest assured - less than 1 in 10 makes it to that stage.

Files get re-assessed after a month and may get deleted as well.

Maybe i'm over cautious, but following a drive failure i lost half a years work, and i've had more than 1 drive in the last 15 years, but now i'm happier with my back up strategy. More work for me, but at least i have LR to help me find those images...


----------



## motorhead (Feb 1, 2012)

I am a serious Belt AND Braces type. I save all my CR2 RAW's as shot, then once those that I deem to be worthy of post processing have been attended to, these get saved seperately in TIFF format.

Everything is then saved twice on a dual disc external harddrive.


----------



## AJ (Feb 1, 2012)

Printing from a jpeg (level 11 or 12) works great if the jpeg is your final product and you're not making any more changes. You won't be able to see any difference on a print between it and a tiff file.

If you do need to make adjustments, however, you'll get degradation and you should go back to the raw file and start again. With a tiff you have more wiggle room to make adjustments.


----------



## Crapking (Feb 1, 2012)

I started using PS just a little while ago and it sounds like I am doing something wrong. My 'new' workflow is to use the Adobe Bridge import of the CR2 files (AFTER a separate back up to a HDD), rate the 'keepers' and trash the junk. The keepers get a touch up in Camera Raw first, and a "save as" JPEG to a new project folder for future uploading to my Phanfare website for group viewing. My question is, when I "done" the original CR2 files, I now have the separate JPEG folder (which has a different filename now) and the 'edited' CR2 files in 2 different places. I used to use Aperture, but now with PS, I am not. Should I revert back to importing into Aperture first (or invest in LR), and then export to PS to edit and then re-import the edits? That sounds like extra steps....


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2012)

Crapking said:


> I started using PS just a little while ago and it sounds like I am doing something wrong. My 'new' workflow is to use the Adobe Bridge import of the CR2 files (AFTER a separate back up to a HDD), rate the 'keepers' and trash the junk. The keepers get a touch up in Camera Raw first, and a "save as" JPEG to a new project folder for future uploading to my Phanfare website for group viewing. My question is, when I "done" the original CR2 files, I now have the separate JPEG folder (which has a different filename now) and the 'edited' CR2 files in 2 different places. I used to use Aperture, but now with PS, I am not. Should I revert back to importing into Aperture first (or invest in LR), and then export to PS to edit and then re-import the edits? That sounds like extra steps....



Nothing wrong with that workflow, if it works for you. I might mass-rename all your CR2's first so they match the eventual JPEG names.


----------



## Grigbar (Feb 3, 2012)

daveheinzel said:


> After years of searching for the right workflow for me, here's what I've been doing for a long time:
> 
> 1) Shoot everything in RAW (with a rare exception of shooting in JPG in some cases)
> 2) Import to Aperture
> ...



There is no advantage to saving anything as a JPEG and it is not a legitimate way to archive RAW files. You talk about this burden of storing your raw files as if they are a heavy weight you carry on your back everywhere you go. But at the same time you do a double back up AND you leave it on your memory card for a few months ata time???? It doesnt make any since. In 5 years i will be able to buy an external hard drive thats larger than all of the hard drives i have now put together. And i dont really care about cost. If im going to buy a DSLR and concern my self with IQ then i can foot the small sum of cash for a hard drive with several TB of storage and it will hold A LOT of 20MB files. More than likely i wont be shooting RAWs that are much over 20MB in size by that time either as it looks like the MP race has taken a divergent path product development. If i ever decide to buy a Hasselblad, i think ill be ok buying my share of 5TB hard drives to go with it, no?

The argument about file transfer time is equally redundant. I will save a lot more time by not having to convert everything to JPEG then resort it. Its not like it takes minutes off my life when my computer is xfering files to my hard drive either and its not like a USB3.0 HDD is exactly slow.

It would be like if you had a RED, edited your movie then saved it as low resolution WMV. I mean hell, while your at it why dont you just convert everything to B&W to get rid of color data and junk the metadata right off the bat to? Why stop at JPEG compression? Lower the resolution as well? That will save you tones of space and time.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 4, 2012)

I agree with Grigbar. The only time I would even consider saving to another format for storage is if support for a specific type of RAW file was broken in a new version, or if Canon was dropping support for it altogether.

The general trend is the reverse of this - old RAW files are having a better time now, with newer RAW converters than existed years ago (cf. Michael Reichmann).


----------



## te4o (Feb 4, 2012)

While I agree with all comments and thank you we are missing my initial point at the opening, it's my fault because of the title of the thread:
I keep the RAWs as you all do BUT the PPed files are TIF or PNG or DNG and they are huge (DNG less but it's new). 
So, you end up with a 20 MB Raw PLUS a 100 MB Tif or similar. 
What do you do with this one? At present I keep both of course. But if I keep all layers which I dont then this goes into 3-400mB - ridiculous isn't it? Now imagine a 30ish MP camera...


----------



## daveheinzel (Feb 4, 2012)

Grigbar said:


> There is no advantage to saving anything as a JPEG and it is not a legitimate way to archive RAW files.



There is an advantage, and it's file space. It's your call if this is an advantage to you, but it's very easy to quantify the advantage in megabytes. And no, JPGs are not a way to archive RAW files. They are a way to save images. You missed the point.



Grigbar said:


> You talk about this burden of storing your raw files as if they are a heavy weight you carry on your back everywhere you go. But at the same time you do a double back up AND you leave it on your memory card for a few months ata time???? It doesnt make any since.



A bit dramatic perhaps. I do a *single* backup and then leave the memory cards intact until the project is done (usually in a week). The memory card backup (which is on a hard drive) is what I keep for months. And it's "sense."



Grigbar said:


> In 5 years i will be able to buy an external hard drive thats larger than all of the hard drives i have now put together. And i dont really care about cost. If im going to buy a DSLR and concern my self with IQ then i can foot the small sum of cash for a hard drive with several TB of storage and it will hold A LOT of 20MB files.



That's great. Your unlimited cash-flow lends itself well to long-term RAW file storage. My workflow works for my situation, and I wanted to share it to give the perspective of why someone might not care about storing RAW files indefinitely.



Grigbar said:


> I mean hell, while your at it why dont you just convert everything to B&W to get rid of color data and junk the metadata right off the bat to? Why stop at JPEG compression? Lower the resolution as well?



You have to agree that a processed RAW file is very comparable to a good JPG of the same resolution. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference, even at 100% on screen. I don't carelessly trash my images for the sake of file space. I spend a lot of time and effort making them as good as possible. But at some point, everyone needs to make a decision about what to do with a project once it's done. I'm really curious to hear about what other people do.

To the original topic... when I am done post-processing images in Photoshop, I re-import into Aperture as PSD and save these images long-term as JPGs only. So I don't personally use TIFFs (but I used to for years). If a photo did require several layers in Photoshop, I usually backup the layered PSD file for the long-term. I'm sure 40 years from now it won't open. But hopefully it will in 2.


----------



## Grigbar (Feb 5, 2012)

daveheinzel said:


> Grigbar said:
> 
> 
> > There is no advantage to saving anything as a JPEG and it is not a legitimate way to archive RAW files.
> ...



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165286

First of all, im 99.999% sure that you dont even have close to 4TB of raw photos laying around. And that external enclosure can read and right files faster than your computer can likely even transfer them to it. So no, i dont understand what your saying. This is 2012, 90% of the people who post here could back up their entire digital catalog to that external enclosure. In fact, i bet i could send my entire RAW folder from last year to those hard drives faster than your computer could convert all of your photos from last year to JPEG.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136839

In the mean time i use that hard drive, it was 80$ when i got it on Amazon. Hard drive prices have gone up since then because of the floods where there made. Hard drive prices are supposed to go back down in a year. In a year, that hard drive might be half full or more. 



daveheinzel said:


> That's great. Your unlimited cash-flow lends itself well to long-term RAW file storage. My workflow works for my situation, and I wanted to share it to give the perspective of why someone might not care about storing RAW files indefinitely.



80$. Take it or leave it no one said this job was cheap and no is going to argue that 80$ for a TB is expensive either. I remember when 80$ bought you a 60GB hard drive, it wasnt that long ago. Now i can buy 1,000GB with it. Its literally more space than most consumers could ever fill.



daveheinzel said:


> You have to agree that a processed RAW file is very comparable to a good JPG of the same resolution. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference, even at 100% on screen.



Thats really not the point at all.

Again, recording studios could save a lot of space by deleting or throwing away their original master tapes after the CD is burned. An artist can throw away all of their early sketches of a project if they want to but they often save them. I could go on an on. All of my RAWs fit in an area the size of a McDonald's hamburger patty, so whats the big deal? I want to always be able to go back and look at my original versions of photos that may be in a photo book next year. I want to know what it looked like in the first place. In 3 years when new thing are introduced into Lightroom i want the ability to throw my old raws in it and see how the come out again. If you dont want to be able to do that, i think you must lack some kind of artistic connection to your photos. And maybe your not an artist, thats fine but for me i just cant imagine it. 

Its your artists privilege to decide if you save the raws or not, but not saving them is always the wrong answer.


----------



## Rav (Feb 5, 2012)

daveheinzel said:


> [workflow]


My workflow is very nearly the same, except I do archive the keeper RAWs + PSDs on a NAS + backup.

One of the promises made with RAW was that with the improvement of converters over time, in the future you'd be able to get better results from the same RAW file. And my experience tells this is indeed true. Occasionally I go over my pictures from ~2006, when I started shooting RAW, and the improvements in quality and control options compared to back then are quite evident in the results.
This benefit might be irrelevant in many professional photography situations (who wants to wait until the vintage is right?), however I like the idea of RAW improving over time as opposed to negatives, which deteriorate.


----------

