Mac OS, and I believe most unix/linux systems, use a journaled file system. Journaled file systems are less likely to have these types of file system errors by design. I've been out of the Windows world for so long I do not know if their file system is like this (though I certainly hope so).
Sorry to hear you're using Windows. But, if you are using the NTFS file system it appears that is a journaled file system, which is good news: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs
By the way, camera memory cards use the old-fashioned DOS "FAT" file system, which is one reason why they are so prone to corruption and why the FAT system fell out of favor.
You could setup Photoshop's save preferences then use a droplet and do this. Not sure I'd go that route for legacy files. I'm sure I have files going back to Photoshop 1.0.7 days that are in various incarnations of PSD, TIFF and others. I think they are fine although I do recall a few years ago, trying to open a very old legacy document (not sure if it was PSD or not) and not being able to do so. Graphic Converter was able to open the document and I resaved it as a TIFF, confirming Photoshop could open it.
In the Photoshop save dialog, after instructing it to save as a tiff, there is another dialog box that comes up with about 5 choices:
Image compression with NONE as default
Pixel Order; Interleaved is default
Byte Order; IBM Pc is default (I'm on windows but want macs to be able to read these files)
Layer Compression; RLE is the default
Should i just leave all of the defaults?
Any file could get corrupted at any time. With Raw plus Sidecar, you've got two instead of one. Yes, the sidecar is far less important given the choice of which would go south.
I live in South Florida where power outages on bright, sunny, no clouds in the sky, windless days is not uncommon. Despite backups, ups/battery backups, etc, data loss is a real threat.
The defaults you have sound fine. You can use compression (I'd use Zip, more universal). But it will take longer to save and open, versus a faster experience at the cost of more disk space (no compression). Your call.
The defaults you have sound fine. You can use compression (I'd use Zip, more universal). But it will take longer to save and open, versus a faster experience at the cost of more disk space (no compression). Your call.
PNG is a standard format with lossless compression. It is more widely supported today than it was 3-5 years ago, but not as widely supported as TIFF. Of the three, PNG is probably the smallest.
Don't forget there is the option of save to 8 bit png, which would not be lossless on an image of over 8 bits...
Hopefully DNG takes hold and lasts the distance, but otherwise lossless LZW-compressed tiffs seem to be compatible with most programs...
That's a good reason to NOT use PSD (there's really no reason). However, TIFF is also an open format, far more fully supported in other applications and can save all the options PSD can.
For me, DNG on the fly at import of Raw. Rendered images get saved as TIFFs.
Andrew - so you opt to convert all RAW files to DNG when imported to lightroom? Mind sharing your viewpoint on the merits of using DNG at import vs keeping the original RAW?
Andrew - so you opt to convert all RAW files to DNG when imported to lightroom? Mind sharing your viewpoint on the merits of using DNG at import vs keeping the original RAW?
Andrew - so you opt to convert all RAW files to DNG when imported to lightroom? Mind sharing your viewpoint on the merits of using DNG at import vs keeping the original RAW?
I wish I could do the same with Aperture -- convert my CR2's to DNG. But alas, appears no way to do this. 'Tis a shame.
I like the DNG format mostly because I tend to despise proprietary file formats, and most camera manufacturer RAW files are kept proprietary. And, worse, as young as digital photography is there are already some RAW formats no longer supported. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what to tell ya. The Adobe DNG format might not be ideal and might have flaws (what format wouldn't?) but I strongly believe any DNG file has a much greater longevity than any proprietary RAW file. Lastly, as a professional programmer I find having to carry around the baggage of lots and lots of file formats just plain wasteful.
Thanks - very informative! Here's my question (and potential hang-up) about DNG files.. Over time, 3rd party RAW converters have changed and improved greatly. I have RAW files from years ago that look better today using a newer RAW converter. Using your own terminology, does converting to DNG, "bake" the file in any way? I realize it's still "RAW", but is there any interpretation of the CR2 file taking place during conversion to DNG that would preclude me from benefiting from further improvements to Adobe's Canon RAW conversion engine? Forgive me if my ignorance on the matter is showing.
Thanks - very informative! Here's my question (and potential hang-up) about DNG files.. Over time, 3rd party RAW converters have changed and improved greatly. I have RAW files from years ago that look better today using a newer RAW converter. Using your own terminology, does converting to DNG, "bake" the file in any way? I realize it's still "RAW", but is there any interpretation of the CR2 file taking place during conversion to DNG that would preclude me from benefiting from further improvements to Adobe's Canon RAW conversion engine? Forgive me if my ignorance on the matter is showing.
There is no "baking". And, if you want to, you can have the DNG file retain the original CR2 file. Its a bigger file, of course, but it would allow you to use a future version of DPP if you wish because you can extract the original CR2 out of the DNG.
I have been considering DNG for a slightly different reason. I currently backup all my images (RAW and any converted JPG) plus the LR database. I have two clones of this, which works out ok.
However, I want to begin archiving, and of course have tried the 'export as catalog" in LR, but really want something much less application specific.
My thoughts are to utilize DNG for this. With DNG, I can have all my LR edits, and even the actual RAW file in one file, easily portable. While I dont need to put the RAW file in the DNG, I am nervous, for no specific reason, about discarding my RAW files.
It seems to me that creating DNG AFTER I have made edits to be a more reasonable use of the file format, as I preserve all the edits I made without having to export as JPG. I can discard my JPG if I need to, since I can easily recreate them if needed from the archived file. Creating a DNG before edit simply recreates what I already have in the RAW, and I dont need to get into the RAW vs DNG debate on this.
Comments
I am still in a Windows environment.
My Fine Art Photography
My Infrared Photography
www.CynthiaMerzerPhotography.com
Sorry to hear you're using Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs
By the way, camera memory cards use the old-fashioned DOS "FAT" file system, which is one reason why they are so prone to corruption and why the FAT system fell out of favor.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
- Image compression with NONE as default
- Pixel Order; Interleaved is default
- Byte Order; IBM Pc is default (I'm on windows but want macs to be able to read these files)
- Layer Compression; RLE is the default
Should i just leave all of the defaults?I live in South Florida where power outages on bright, sunny, no clouds in the sky, windless days is not uncommon. Despite backups, ups/battery backups, etc, data loss is a real threat.
My Fine Art Photography
My Infrared Photography
www.CynthiaMerzerPhotography.com
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Thanks
Appreciate the response.
My Fine Art Photography
My Infrared Photography
www.CynthiaMerzerPhotography.com
Don't forget there is the option of save to 8 bit png, which would not be lossless on an image of over 8 bits...
Hopefully DNG takes hold and lasts the distance, but otherwise lossless LZW-compressed tiffs seem to be compatible with most programs...
www.gadgetaus.com/photos
www.ausmotorsport.com
Andrew - so you opt to convert all RAW files to DNG when imported to lightroom? Mind sharing your viewpoint on the merits of using DNG at import vs keeping the original RAW?
Sure:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I like the DNG format mostly because I tend to despise proprietary file formats, and most camera manufacturer RAW files are kept proprietary. And, worse, as young as digital photography is there are already some RAW formats no longer supported. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what to tell ya. The Adobe DNG format might not be ideal and might have flaws (what format wouldn't?) but I strongly believe any DNG file has a much greater longevity than any proprietary RAW file. Lastly, as a professional programmer I find having to carry around the baggage of lots and lots of file formats just plain wasteful.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Thanks - very informative! Here's my question (and potential hang-up) about DNG files.. Over time, 3rd party RAW converters have changed and improved greatly. I have RAW files from years ago that look better today using a newer RAW converter. Using your own terminology, does converting to DNG, "bake" the file in any way? I realize it's still "RAW", but is there any interpretation of the CR2 file taking place during conversion to DNG that would preclude me from benefiting from further improvements to Adobe's Canon RAW conversion engine? Forgive me if my ignorance on the matter is showing.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
However, I want to begin archiving, and of course have tried the 'export as catalog" in LR, but really want something much less application specific.
My thoughts are to utilize DNG for this. With DNG, I can have all my LR edits, and even the actual RAW file in one file, easily portable. While I dont need to put the RAW file in the DNG, I am nervous, for no specific reason, about discarding my RAW files.
It seems to me that creating DNG AFTER I have made edits to be a more reasonable use of the file format, as I preserve all the edits I made without having to export as JPG. I can discard my JPG if I need to, since I can easily recreate them if needed from the archived file. Creating a DNG before edit simply recreates what I already have in the RAW, and I dont need to get into the RAW vs DNG debate on this.
Am I missing something?