Advice on File formats

That covers some of it but the original post was early 2006 and by Chris
Cox. I just found an archive of posts that goes back to 3-06, still couldn't
find it. The Jeff Schewe posts covers some of it.

It certainly isn't anything I would worry about. But, I also wouldn't
archive my images in PSD format either. For work in progress not problem.
Long term I don't think so.

ljc


"Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen" <paul.TakeThisOut@dirtylinenSpamBeGone.com> wrote in message
news:11f9t2dnlripj5bpc9d5crg3j34qep63dt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ <john.TakeThisOut@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Little Juice Coupe wrote:
>>> Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for
>>> it,
>>> but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they
>>> are
>>> developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe
>>> personel on
>>> the Adobe user forums).
>>
>>Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that
>>Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of
>>TIFF, but TIFF itself?
>
> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=593...readid=
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/2k975t
>
> Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.
> --
> Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen
> The Magazine of Folk and World Music
> www.dirtylinen.com
> Remove "SpamBeGone" to reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is
the same as a lossless image, meaning no data is lost and your picture will
be exactly how you left it.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

No it isn't. There is no setting you can use with JPG that doesn't cause
data loss. You may not see it until you do the 20th save or whatever, but
data is being lost.

ljc


"Aaron Sun" <asun3.DeleteThis@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:er2q1q$ebl$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it
> is the same as a lossless image, meaning no data is lost and your picture
> will be exactly how you left it.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

In article <er2q1q$ebl$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
"Aaron Sun" <asun3 DeleteThis @gatech.edu> wrote:

> JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is
> the same as a lossless image...

False.

Absolutely false. Even at quality 12, there is still loss. This JPEG
setting absolutely IS NOT lossless, as saving an image in JPEG and the
same image in TIFF and then placing the two images over one another in
Difference mode will show.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:

> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=593...readid=
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Help me out - who are the Adobe developers in those URLs.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

Aaron Sun wrote:
> JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is
> the same as a lossless image

Bullshit.
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

JJ wrote:
> Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:
>
>> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=593...readid=
>>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/2k975t
>
> Help me out - who are the Adobe developers in those URLs.

Jeff Schewe is the main, perhaps only, one.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but
not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional
photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.
BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still
supported pretty much universally.
The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so
either that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth.
But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it,
> but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are
> developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on
> the Adobe user forums).
>
> The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said
> Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch
> format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images
> in a nitch format.
>
> The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to
> play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't
> support that well.
>
> There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and
> storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot
> of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program)
> don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers.
> But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than
> PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show
> you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press
> hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.
>
> The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the
> future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind
> of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I
> would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs
> becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and
> would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the
> web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.
>
> ljc
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

Glenis wrote:
> OK. Thanks.
> I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
> software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
> including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but
> not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional
> photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even
> locally.

TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in
terms of "archival" quality in images.

PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but
among the least "archival".

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

You don't have to be. Use what you like. At least you now have some more
information and I assume you can decide for yourself. That is what these
groups are all about, getting information so once can make the best choice
for themselves or to learn how to do something new.

ljc


"Glenis" <gh.TakeThisOut@here.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45d508c3$0$8735$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> OK. Thanks.
> I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
> software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
> including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not
> enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer
> and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.
> BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still
> supported pretty much universally.
> The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so either
> that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth.
> But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.
>
> Little Juice Coupe wrote:
>> Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for
>> it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that
>> they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe
>> personel on the Adobe user forums).
>>
>> The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said
>> Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch
>> format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my
>> images in a nitch format.
>>
>> The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to
>> play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs
>> don't support that well.
>>
>> There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and
>> storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole
>> lot of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware
>> program) don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files
>> with layers. But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better
>> archiving option than PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves
>> in PNG and I will show you a photographer that isn't professional. Show
>> me a printer (pre-press hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show
>> you a not so hot printer.
>>
>> The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to
>> the future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this
>> kind of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not
>> someting I would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my
>> cameras JPGs as JPGs becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as
>> TIF while I do so and would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless
>> it was going back on the web. But, for archiving without ever resaving
>> JPG is just fine.
>>
>> ljc
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is one
that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG
will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by
most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the
three that will make it that long if not longer. TIF and JPG are both over a
decade old, TIF I think older than that.

Will any of these be around in 100 years? Sure, in the Smithsonian in a
display of a mannequin holding a CD with a little sign under it saying
something like "100 years ago these small plastic discs (CDs) are what
people stored their images on. They used file formats like TIF, DNG, PSD and
JPG. While this CD contains images we currently have no way of accessing.
The specifications for these formats as well as the format for the CD have
long since been lost."

In other words they are going to look back and think we were cave people
with low sloped foreheads.

ljc


"John McWilliams" <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l7udnYtCIqV4sEjYnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Glenis wrote:
>> OK. Thanks.
>> I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
>> software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
>> including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not
>> enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer
>> and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.
>
> TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in terms
> of "archival" quality in images.
>
> PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but among
> the least "archival".
>
> --
> John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

On Feb 16, 10:25 am, "Little Juice Coupe" <nos....DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:
> It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is one
> that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG
> will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by
> most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the
> three that will make it that long if not longer. TIF and JPG are both over a
> decade old, TIF I think older than that.
>
> Will any of these be around in 100 years? Sure, in the Smithsonian in a
> display of a mannequin holding a CD with a little sign under it saying
> something like "100 years ago these small plastic discs (CDs) are what
> people stored their images on. They used file formats like TIF, DNG, PSD and
> JPG. While this CD contains images we currently have no way of accessing.
> The specifications for these formats as well as the format for the CD have
> long since been lost."
[snip]

If the Smithsonian can preserve a CD, they can surely preserve a
specification of a format!

Once a format becomes identified as an archival format, and used by
professional archivists and librarians, it is very likely to survive.
Those people know the importance of active management of their
collections - that is how we still have archives of negatives and
photographs from so many decades ago.

ISO 19005-1 is "Document management - Electronic document file format
for long-term preservation". Isn't that likely to gain a LOT of
attention from archivists and librarians worldwide? Won't that ensure
that lots of specifications are preserved in that format, and the
means to read those specifications will be ensured?

Is ISO 19005-1 likely to be supported? In fact, it is also known as
PDF/A. It is, in effect, a subset of PDF. I don't know whether
existing PDF-versions of these file formats can be read by a PDF/A
reader, but if not I'm sure conforming versions will be written.

(Will it be possible to run C-code in 100 years time? I suspect it
will. And there is plenty of C-code that supports the above file
formats).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats 

Yes, the comments from this group have given me food for thought and
encouraged more research. As a result, I'm now leaning in the direction
of TIFFs.
The only other consideration is that if I convert all of my pictures
from PNG to TIF I will need at least twice as much storage space. So,
it'll be time for another hard drive.
Thanks for everyone's comments.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> You don't have to be. Use what you like. At least you now have some more
> information and I assume you can decide for yourself. That is what these
> groups are all about, getting information so once can make the best choice
> for themselves or to learn how to do something new.
>
> ljc
>
>
> "Glenis" <gh.TakeThisOut@here.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45d508c3$0$8735$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> OK. Thanks.
>> I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
>> software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
>> including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not
>> enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer
>> and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.
>> BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still
>> supported pretty much universally.
>> The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so either
>> that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth.
>> But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.
>>
>> Little Juice Coupe wrote:
>>> Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for
>>> it, but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that
>>> they are developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe
>>> personel on the Adobe user forums).
>>>
>>> The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said
>>> Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch
>>> format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my
>>> images in a nitch format.
>>>
>>> The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to
>>> play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs
>>> don't support that well.
>>>
>>> There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and
>>> storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole
>>> lot of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware
>>> program) don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files
>>> with layers. But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better
>>> archiving option than PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves
>>> in PNG and I will show you a photographer that isn't professional. Show
>>> me a printer (pre-press hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show
>>> you a not so hot printer.
>>>
>>> The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to
>>> the future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this
>>> kind of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not
>>> someting I would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my
>>> cameras JPGs as JPGs becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as
>>> TIF while I do so and would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless
>>> it was going back on the web. But, for archiving without ever resaving
>>> JPG is just fine.
>>>
>>> ljc
>>>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Advice on File formats