RAW and TIFF

webwizard

Before I went to digital equipment, I routinely converted my slides to TIFF and worked with that in PS. Even after I converted to digital, I still found myself converting from RAW to TIFF on almost every image. I kept the RAW images around but never did much with them after converting to TIFF.

So now I have a large library of both TIFF and RAW formats of the same images. As I am learning to do more with the raw image, I am wondering if there is any value in retaining the TIFF versions of the same photo.

I'm beginning to think not. I know I can retain both the original and edited version of the RAW image, so I can create a TIFF whenver that is required.

I probably answered my own question but the pack rat in me is making me hesitate cleaning things up. Any comments on the value of retainig all these TIFF images is appreciated.

TheMightyZog

If you have backed everything up - then yes I agree with you, bin them

arodney

Obviously you want to keep the Raw's around to re-render a new color appearance of improve upon a previous attempt. And as a converter gets better, so does the resulting Tiff you may generate.

A lot depends on the product you use too. I use Lightroom so in one case, I have less need for a Tiff IF I'm printing or exporting finals out of it. But many need a trip into Photoshop for say output sharpening and soft proofing so, I end up with a Tiff. If I do a decent amount of work on them, I keep them. But the Raw plus rendering instructions, a process where more and more heavy lifting is now done (with I'll add better quality and speed) is more important to me.

ziggy53

FWIW I suffer from the same ailment, trying to keep too much. I usually wind up keeping just the starting/original and final/presentation files.

The only time I "try" to keep intermediate files is doing artsy stuff where I really don't remember how I got from point to point, and where the results look promising enough but not final, so "works-in-progress" files.

Richard

If you are saving the RAW files (and the settings you used to convert them) then TIFF files of the conversion results don't really add much. The only thing to keep an eye on in the future is whether software remains available to read and convert today's RAW formats, which will be obsolete, sooner or later. At that point it will be necessary to convert the RAW files into whatever looks like it will be stable for another 10 to 20 years. Remember too that with the exception of DNG, RAW formats are proprietary. Even if I could read the media, I wouldn't bet that I have any software on my machine that can read WordStar or WordPerfect files.

claudermilk

As with the others, I only keep the original RAWs and final JPEGs. The very few TIFFs I keep are because of them having a lot of pixel-editing work that's difficult & time-consuming to replicate.

Sure, there's not likely any software to read your WordPerfect or WordStar files on your machine, but finding converters to accomplish that is only a Google search away.

xris

rsinmadrid wrote:

... with the exception of DNG, RAW formats are proprietary.... .

Don't be fooled. DNG belongs to Adobe. That makes it proprietary. And I've read several posts over the past few years that suggest Adobe keeps some of the processing secrets close to its chest. Do a quick search and you'll find many articles. Here's one that offers some thoughtful considerations:

http://www.openraw.org/articles

And regarding the question of keeping your originals. Here's a quick one from a thread a Digital Light and Color

http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/2/9886.html

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]A snippit from the above thread:

Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 12:13 am: [/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]From Adobe's DNG spec:

It should be noted that the Adobe DNG Converter will not necessarily maintain all of the private metadata in certain camera-specific raw formats because this information is not publicly documented and therefore not available to Adobe. However, the Adobe DNG Converter will maintain all of the original image data as well as all of the metadata needed for a high-quality final conversion. Arguably, the private metadata is not really archival, regardless of the format used, simply because it is undocumented. Nevertheless, Adobe recommends that, when photographers use the Adobe DNG Converter for archival purposes, they should maintain both the resulting DNG file and the original camera-specific file. The DNG file offers greater assurance of longevity, but the camera-specific file may contain more metadata. This distinction does not exist, however, for DNG files created by camera manufacturers because they can include all of the private metadata within the Digital Negative."

Lots to think on.
[/FONT]

Richard

xris wrote:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

It should be noted that the Adobe DNG Converter will not necessarily maintain all of the private metadata in certain camera-specific raw formats because this information is not publicly documented and therefore not available to Adobe. However, the Adobe DNG Converter will maintain all of the original image data as well as all of the metadata needed for a high-quality final conversion.
[/FONT]

I'm not sure I see how this is different from JPG, which has universally readable image data but also contains camera maker fields which are proprietary and often undocumented. Personally, I am not using DNG as it has not taken hold yet. I only mentioned it as a possible long-term solution.

xris

rsinmadrid wrote:

I'm not sure I see how this is different from JPG...

The JPEG format is maintained by an open systems organization charged with maintaining an open digital storage format. DNG belongs to Adobe -- a corporate entity obliged to make money for its shareholders. If DNG catches on, royalties will almost certainly follow. While format control rests with Adobe. This means any equipment manufacturer using DNG will be limited by what features and capabilities Adobe chooses to write into (or make available in) DNG.

With those points in mind a can't, for the life of me, see why any other business interest (hardware or software vendors) would climb on board?

As an independent practisioner wishing to maintain control of his libarary, I treat it like the plague!

Richard

xris wrote:

The JPEG format is maintained by an open systems organization charged with maintaining an open digital storage format. DNG belongs to Adobe -- a corporate entity obliged to make money for its shareholders. If DNG catches on, royalties will almost certainly follow. While format control rests with Adobe. This means any equipment manufacturer using DNG will be limited by what features and capabilities Adobe chooses to write into (or make available in) DNG.

With those points in mind a can't, for the life of me, see why any other business interest (hardware or software vendors) would climb on board?

As an independent practisioner wishing to maintain control of his libarary, I treat it like the plague!

There is an interesting debate on this here. It seems to me that the bottom line is there really is no satisfactory non-proprietary long term solution at the moment. For the foreseeable future, most of us are dependent on Adobe anyway, so I can't lose any sleep over it.

kwcrow

I do convert to DNG straight off of the memory card. I use both photoshop CS3 and adobe lightroom. These files are 33% smaller than RAW and also lossless and less than half the size of TIFF. I don't see a downside as long as you plan to stay with adobe for awhile. If you really want to change later, then you can convert at that time to whatever format that you want.

claudermilk

xris already mentioned one downside: a likely possibility that some metadata is lost. That's up to you to decide how important that is. Here's another: you've now limited the software available to you somewhat--not all apps will read DNG.

As has been mentioned, DNG is simply yet another proprietary file format. It has no more or less longevity than any other. IMHO it's jumping through more hoops to no gain--except, of course for the very few cameras that use DNG as their native RAW format. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind the format, however there's not enough traction yet to make its' use worthwhile.

arodney

claudermilk wrote:

: you've now limited the software available to you somewhat--not all apps will read DNG.

We have that and had that before with the proprietary Raw. Someone has to back hack the format to decode the data.

As has been mentioned, DNG is simply yet another proprietary file format.

Yes its better. And yes, its proprietary in that it's not like any other format but no, its not proprietary in that its a publicly open format, anyone can use in their software without paying Adobe money, as they do if using PSD (a rather unnecessary format for most users who can use Tiff a proprietary format owned by Adobe).

It has no more or less longevity than any other. IMHO it's jumping through more hoops to no gain--except, of course for the very few cameras that use DNG as their native RAW format. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind the format, however there's not enough traction yet to make its' use worthwhile.

There's no hoop, I've got a button that does this on the fly as I import the data into Lightroom, add all the necessary custom metadata and default rendering. Its just the added time for ingestion. I don't normally download and convert when I'm not prep'ed to devote some time for all ingestion. I get more files per drive, no sidecare files and an embedded JPEG that matches the current rendering instructions (if I do things correctly) that can greatly aid in printing.

And you don't know the longevity as no one has a crystal ball. But Adobe has about the best track record in the business so far.

As to the point about more cameras, chicken and egg time. IF more photographers who purchased the cameras put pressure on manufacturers to offer DNG onto our cards, something they could do today for virtually no money, wouldn't that make our life's easier!

nmh

proprietary dng content

arodney wrote:

We have that and had that before with the proprietary Raw. Someone has to back hack the format to decode the data.

Yes its better. And yes, its proprietary in that it's not like any other format but no, its not proprietary in that its a publicly open format, anyone can use in their software without paying Adobe money, as they do if using PSD (a rather unnecessary format for most users who can use Tiff a proprietary format owned by Adobe).

If it is public, open and all that, what is the protocol for getting at all the data that is in the original raw file? (hint: the answer is that no such protocol nor documentation exist)

If you drink the adobe-aid and use all adobe products, dng is probably great to use. If you don't, there may be little point to it. As a non-adobe user, I prefer open source decoding software (dcraw/ufraw) which works on the platforms that I use as opposed to proprietary software that only works on some computers.

ps - dng, like cr2 is a tiff derivative.

arodney

nmh wrote:

If it is public, open and all that, what is the protocol for getting at all the data that is in the original raw file? (hint: the answer is that no such protocol nor documentation exist)

What's the protocol to hack the real proprietary data of the Raw file? Don't know, doesn't matter. The fact is, once the data IS in DNG, anyone who wants to handle that data can at no cost.

If you drink the adobe-aid and use all adobe products, dng is probably great to use.

You sound like someone pissed off at Adobe and not someone thinking clearly as an end user. Is DNG perfect? No. Is it a format that provides a number of useful functionality that isn't present in the current proprietary Raw scheme's? Yes indeed. Are your files smaller, do you remove the potential loss of side care files and have a way to communicate the rendering via an embedded JPEG, one that can be used to print? Yes. Do any of the proprietary Raw formats offer this? No.

What kookaid? There's no fee to use the product. Its only a win for me an others who are happy to have at least a partial solution to a huge problem.

Or you can suggest Adobe is an evil company, selling (or giving away Kooliad) and throw the baby out with the bath water.

For those of use that have a clue about a preferred workflow using Adobe products, DNG is a very, very useful capability.

If you don't want to use either Adobe products or DNG, fine with me. But that doesn't dismiss the very usefulness of the format nor that it should be provided out of the cameras themselves (or something better, free and universal). You code?

claudermilk

As we've made obvious in the past, we simply do not agree on DNG. Horses for courses. I'll leave it at each of us needs to take a hard look at whether using the format is actually useful to our own workflow. I know for myself it's completely pointless and actually a hindrance.

nmh

arodney wrote:

What's the protocol to hack the real proprietary data of the Raw file? Don't know, doesn't matter. The fact is, once the data IS in DNG, anyone who wants to handle that data can at no cost.

If you don't want to use either Adobe products or DNG, fine with me. But that doesn't dismiss the very usefulness of the format nor that it should be provided out of the cameras themselves (or something better, free and universal). You code?

The point I was making is that DNG is not open - it does not make it any easier to get at the maker notes or the encrypted information.

I do not like adobe, I am not trying to pretend that I do. I do not hate them either - I just don't use their products. You use adobe and find DNG useful. It is not useful for those who do not use adobe, since it is just another proprietary raw format.

I am not saying that DNG should be outlawed or anything like that, just that people should consider the usefulness and the costs. And yes, I do write software, and I do know something of what is involved with decoding the bits in a real raw file.

arodney

nmh wrote:

The point I was making is that DNG is not open - it does not make it any easier to get at the maker notes or the encrypted information.

The DNG spec is open, the proprietary Raw isn't, go complain to Nikon and Canon about that.

Do you think that due to Adobe (or anyone else, there are lots of converters) ability to hack proprietary files, they should provide YOU the means to do this or the code? I'm not even close to a lawyer, I think that would be a very bad idea for a company to do.

I do not like adobe, I am not trying to pretend that I do. I do not hate them either - I just don't use their products.

That sums up that position clearly.

webwizard

Thanks for everyone's assistance and the animated discussion that followed.

I definitely think I have my question answered but I didn't know that it would trigger such ardent discussions with regard to Adobe. It seems that every industry has their 5000 pound gorilla.

xris

Big Bro Adobe

webwizard wrote:

...I didn't know that it would trigger such ardent discussions with regard to Adobe. It seems that every industry has their 5000 pound gorilla.

More like a 10-ton Big Brother me thinks!!

Just TRY removing all the Adobe code on your box...

arodney

xris wrote:

Just TRY removing all the Adobe code on your box...

Its super easy, at least on a Mac. In Utilities folder, each product you installed has an uninstaller. Run it, everything is gone.

And from someone who's done a TON of alpha and beta testing for Adobe (and others), let me tell you its necessary for that process.

Getting rid of the Adobe stuff, at least in the last few years could not be simpler.

MarkR

arodney wrote:

Its super easy, at least on a Mac. In Utilities folder, each product you installed has an uninstaller. Run it, everything is gone.

And from someone who's done a TON of alpha and beta testing for Adobe (and others), let me tell you its necessary for that process.

Getting rid of the Adobe stuff, at least in the last few years could not be simpler.

But see http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071231-adobe-omniture-in-hot-water-for-snooping-on-cs3-users.html

And then question what else Adobe might have put on your system, and, if they have, whether their uninstaller removes it.

arodney

The Hobbyist wrote:

And then question what else Adobe might have put on your system, and, if they have, whether their uninstaller removes it.

I'm far more worried about the Patriot Act.

And Nack has responded to what appears to basically be a lot of hype and nonsense.

MarkR

They've done a good job of damage control -- far better than, say, Sony did when they got caught installing rootkits on PCs.

And I don't think anyone was concerned that Adobe's products phone-home to different metrics sites as mentioned in the article above. What was disconcerting was that they went to lengths to disguise it as local LAN traffic. Why?

At the very least, it's a questionable business practice. At most, it's making me reconsider my (legitimate, licensed) use of Adobe products.

PS, if the Patriot Act had an uninstall feature, I wouldn't trust that, either.

jfriend

The Hobbyist wrote:

They've done a good job of damage control -- far better than, say, Sony did when they got caught installing rootkits on PCs.

And I don't think anyone was concerned that Adobe's products phone-home to different metrics sites as mentioned in the article above. What was disconcerting was that they went to lengths to disguise it as local LAN traffic. Why?

At the very least, it's a questionable business practice. At most, it's making me reconsider my (legitimate, licensed) use of Adobe products.

PS, if the Patriot Act had an uninstall feature, I wouldn't trust that, either.

This is all a bunch of hooey. If you don't like Adobe's products, then stop using them, but you should stop spreading scary mis-information. The only thing I've seen that could have been done differently is a different choice of a domain name for the hit reporting, but that was a third party company, not even Adobe.

First of all, the domain name chosen is only potentially misleading to real net geeks. I would venture that 98% of Photoshop users would not be decieved in the least by it. It just looks like a cryptic net address, just like many others used by advertising-type sites.

Second of all, this is not Adobe that made the choice of a domain name. It's a company they hired to do some metrics tracking. It is most likely that Adobe had nothing to do with the domain name and may not have even been aware of it or of any objections to it.

Thirdly, the reason Adobe handled this better than Sony is because Adobe didn't do anything wrong of any consequence and Sony did some real evil.

You are free to stop using Adobe products if you think this is so evil that you must continually write about how bad it is. But, any information you share with others should be accurate and unbiased so they can make their own informed decisions.

arodney

jfriend wrote:

Second of all, this is not Adobe that made the choice of a domain name. It's a company they hired to do some metrics tracking.

Exactly. BFD.

MarkR

jfriend wrote:

This is all a bunch of hooey. If you don't like Adobe's products, then stop using them, but you should stop spreading scary mis-information. The only thing I've seen that could have been done differently is a different choice of a domain name for the hit reporting, but that was a third party company, not even Adobe.

First of all, the domain name chosen is only potentially misleading to real net geeks. I would venture that 98% of Photoshop users would not be decieved in the least by it. It just looks like a cryptic net address, just like many others used by advertising-type sites.

Second of all, this is not Adobe that made the choice of a domain name. It's a company they hired to do some metrics tracking. It is most likely that Adobe had nothing to do with the domain name and may not have even been aware of it or of any objections to it.

Thirdly, the reason Adobe handled this better than Sony is because Adobe didn't do anything wrong of any consequence and Sony did some real evil.

You are free to stop using Adobe products if you think this is so evil that you must continually write about how bad it is. But, any information you share with others should be accurate and unbiased so they can make their own informed decisions.

Hi Jfriend.

Maybe I didn't put enough smileys in my comments because I seem to have touched off a nerve. First, though lets clear up a misconception: the only "bad things" I' know I've written about Adobe are two (now three) posts in this thread. You might have me confused with some other posters in the Finishing School.

I've also posted good things about Adobe elsewhere, and even typed up a (lame) Photoshop tutorial a while back, and try to post links of interest to Photoshop users when I find them -- most recently a link to an article about using curves to simulate film types.

I do however believe that anyone who will do something for a good reason will also be willing to do it for a bad one. I also believe that corporations are ultimately responsible for what they put in their product, regardless of whether it was a third party or not.

So, I would like to address some of your points.

Your first point I respectfully disagree with. Non-net geeks aren't going to know or care what 192.168 blah-blah-blah means. Therefore the only real reason to use it (that I can think of) would be to attempt to deceive someone or something that understands class C IP schema. That's kinda my main point, actually. Adobe, through one of it's partners, did something deceptive, and I don't particularly enjoy it when someone tries to deceive me, regardless of the actual outcome. Do you? Yeah, sure, this time to harm, no foul, but what about next time?

As to your second point, again, Adobe let someone put something into their product. Adobe takes the heat.

As to your third point, well, yeah, as I mentioned in my other posts, Adobe didn't do anything terribly wrong that we know of. But again I live by the maxim that if you'll do something for the right reasons, you'll do it for the wrong ones as well. By engaging in questionable practices, they've considerably lowered my trust level with them, and I think that is a reasonable position to take.

Finally, I think that we (well, mainly I) have hijacked the OP's original post long past the point of usefulness. If you want, I'd be happy to hash out this debate in a new thread?

Oh. And really, honestly, finally, I just realized that my comment to arodney "PS, if the Patriot Act had an uninstall feature, I wouldn't trust that, either." was not the best phrasing. I was trying to make a joke in response to his "I'm far more worried about the Patriot Act" to the extent of saying, "I also, am far more worried about the Patriot Act, and also don't trust the PA's uninstall feature." The way I phrased it makes it look as though I'm comparing Adobe's Uninstall feature to the Patriot Act, which was not my intent.

EDIT: removed some of my more excessive ramblings.

jfriend

The Hobbyist wrote:

Hi Jfriend.

Maybe I didn't put enough smileys in my comments because I seem to have touched off a nerve. First, though lets clear up a misconception: the only "bad things" I' know I've written about Adobe are two (now three) posts in this thread. You might have me confused with some other posters in the Finishing School.

I've also posted good things about Adobe elsewhere, and even typed up a (lame) Photoshop tutorial a while back, and try to post links of interest to Photoshop users when I find them -- most recently a link to an article about using curves to simulate film types.

I do however believe that anyone who will do something for a good reason will also be willing to do it for a bad one. I also believe that corporations are ultimately responsible for what they put in their product, regardless of whether it was a third party or not.

So, I would like to address some of your points.

Your first point I respectfully disagree with. Non-net geeks aren't going to know or care what 192.168 blah-blah-blah means. Therefore the only real reason to use it (that I can think of) would be to attempt to deceive someone or something that understands class C IP schema. That's kinda my main point, actually. Adobe, through one of it's partners, did something deceptive, and I don't particularly enjoy it when someone tries to deceive me, regardless of the actual outcome. Do you? Yeah, sure, this time to harm, no foul, but what about next time?

As to your second point, again, Adobe let someone put something into their product. Adobe takes the heat.

As to your third point, well, yeah, as I mentioned in my other posts, Adobe didn't do anything terribly wrong that we know of. But again I live by the maxim that if you'll do something for the right reasons, you'll do it for the wrong ones as well. By engaging in questionable practices, they've considerably lowered my trust level with them, and I think that is a reasonable position to take.

Finally, I think that we (well, mainly I) have hijacked the OP's original post long past the point of usefulness. If you want, I'd be happy to hash out this debate in a new thread?

Oh. And really, honestly, finally, I just realized that my comment to arodney "PS, if the Patriot Act had an uninstall feature, I wouldn't trust that, either." was not the best phrasing. I was trying to make a joke in response to his "I'm far more worried about the Patriot Act" to the extent of saying, "I also, am far more worried about the Patriot Act, and also don't trust the PA's uninstall feature." The way I phrased it makes it look as though I'm comparing Adobe's Uninstall feature to the Patriot Act, which was not my intent.

EDIT: removed some of my more excessive ramblings.

Fair points. I'm just amazed at how blown-out-of-proportion this has gotten and get a bit perturbed at how the internet can propogate fairly baseless hysteria very quickly.

While Adobe does carry the ultimate responsibility for what goes in their products, it is very different to me if I think they had mal-intent versus they made a mistake. The former is the sign of an evil company. The latter is a process or testing mistake that will likely be corrected. From what I've read, I see no evidence of the former and, based on my experience in the software industry, I could imagine many ways that it could have been the latter.

xris

For what it's worth. It took me several months to figure out what was accessing my network at various times. Three or four times I thought I'd uncovered the bugger and each time it was an undocumented DLL that had Adobe all over it -- even after uninstalling everything Adobe.

How'd I nab the culprit? I got rid of them all, then reinstalled Elements.

Guess what. They all came back.

No idea what info they were so furvently sending out over the net. My guess is it has something to do with my use of other software packages, but who knows. Could of been collaborating with secret agents on Mars for all I know.

My issue is, if you're going walk all over my grass you best ask first. And be nice. Don't sell me some crappy, half-assed software then stick it in my back side!

Anyway. I nuked 'em again and this time I hope they're gone for good.

barbbarbbarbbarb

miguelcandela

I think all of us agree that Jpeg files is not the most convenient method to work with. Every time you open a jpeg, it looks quality. So after open it 20 or 60 times, the image will not be as the original. But if we use tiff file this problem will not ocurr. We can use with tiff file without worrying about open it as many times as we want (for a certain period of time). Besides, a tiff file will always have more information than any Jpeg.

What I do, I shoot in Raw file and then when I fix anything in Camera Raw then I make those changes in tiff file. I basically do not use jpeg except for the website (you need accpeted files so everyone can see them and fast uploading).

arodney

miguelcandela wrote:

I think all of us agree that Jpeg files is not the most convenient method to work with. Every time you open a jpeg, it looks quality.

I assume you were trying to say "it loses quality" but that is not correct. You have to alter the data, re-save it as a JPEG for the quality to degrade (which isn't going to happen with a Tiff due to the new compression). That is, you can open a JPEG as many times as you wish, it will remain the same and not undergo any degradation UNLESS you edit the document. Then it has to be re-compressed as a JPEG. If you edit a TIFF, there's also some image degradation (that's always going to happen to any image due to rounding errors) but its far, far less than doing the same edit and saving as a JPEG.