Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > PSD, TIFF et al

Reply
Thread Tools

PSD, TIFF et al

 
 
Donald Gray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2004
Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
PSD as my prefered format.

I only save them as a JPG _IF_ and only if I want to put them on the
web or email them, otherwise file size is generally not an issue.

I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)


--
Donald Gray
Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
Thanks
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2004

"Donald Gray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
> occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
> PSD as my prefered format.
>
> I only save them as a JPG _IF_ and only if I want to put them on the
> web or email them, otherwise file size is generally not an issue.
>
> I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
> non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)
>


If your time line is 5 years or under, than virtually any non-lossy format
will suffice. The risk is that you may find it very difficult to decode
proprietary formats in the future, especially if they fall out of use or are
abandoned, like FlashPix was.

Already there are reports of early compressed TIF files that do not open in
all graphic software. PhotoShop or Paint Shop Pro formats are fine for
now--but who knows if they'll even be around in 50 years?

I've reviewed the digitization procedures of several major libraries, and
the consensus seems to be to save in uncompressed TIF format for the long
haul. I had previously been saving my files in FlashPix format (it was the
closest thing to Kodak's PhotoCD format) but the consortium that created
FlashPix fell apart a couple of years ago, and the format is dead. Try to
get a FlashPix plug-in so you can view those images in your web browser . .
..

Remember all the old word processor formats, like Word Perfect for DOS or
Multi-Mate? How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, which was once THE
spreadsheet program used by every business with a PC? Try to read those
files now--even current Lotus 1-2-3 can't read the old DOS files!

If long-term file readability is important to you, I'd suggest that you
follow the crowd and stick with UNCOMPRESSED TIF. On the other hand, if you
are looking at a short time horizon, there are a number of good formats that
you can consider.

This issue is far from resolved, and it is causing archivists all around the
world to have many sleepless nights. But for right now, TIF seems the
archival format of choice.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Donald Gray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2004
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:53:46 GMT, "Jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

[]
>>
>> I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
>> non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)
>>

>
>If your time line is 5 years or under, than virtually any non-lossy format
>will suffice.

[]
>If long-term file readability is important to you, I'd suggest that you
>follow the crowd and stick with UNCOMPRESSED TIF.

[]
>..... But for right now, TIF seems the
>archival format of choice.
>

Thank you for a very informative & nicely thought out reply.

Looks like I have some work to do converting... I was unaware of the
issues of obsolescence of formats in imaging as long as staying with
the major ones, but perhaps choosing proprietary ones is a risk in the
long term.

I do remember Multimate and Lotus 123 - even earlier Applewriter and
Visicalc - those were the days when the operation language (Applesoft
basic), the Programme AND the data & scratch pad, all had to reside in
64 Kb. The youngsters just don't realise that they got it so good!

Yeah - 1983 - emails at 300 baud (75baud fall back) - Yeah - those
WERE the days...

Thanks for the trip down memory lane Jeremy...

Cheers


--
Donald Gray
Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
Thanks
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2004

"Donald Gray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> Looks like I have some work to do converting... I was unaware of the
> issues of obsolescence of formats in imaging as long as staying with
> the major ones, but perhaps choosing proprietary ones is a risk in the
> long term.
>


I first became aware of how fragile data was when I read an article in "The
New Yorker" magazine a couple of years ago. Our federal government has lost
tons of data due to proprietary formats and proprietary storage media--where
the vendors have gone out of business, leaving users of their proprietary
data hanging.

Parts of the 1970 census are unreadable, because the vendor that provided
the data tapes and recording/playback equipment is gone, and no one can
provide the Government with the appropriate playback equipment.

A ton of the last mission to Mars has been lost, because of equipment
incompatibility problems.

When Clinton and Gore were about to leave office, the National Archives
started a project to preserve their emails. There were millions of them,
and the Government PRINTED THEM OUT onto paper, then microfilmed the paper!
Microfilm has a useful life of over 500 years under proper storage
conditions, and all one needs to read the film is a light and a magnifier.

The Kodak PCD format (Photo CD) is now only 10 years old, and virtually no
one is making Photo CDs anymore (I'm referring to the Kodak product--people
are now scanning and saving their own images, at a much cheaper price than
Kodak charges). That format will be completely dead in another 10 years,
and it is only a matter of time before no software will be able to read
those files. So much for archiving photos using a proprietary format (You
cannot buy software that saves files in PCD format--only software that can
read it.). And this is a product that Kodak has invested millions of
dollars to promote! Right now, there is serious doubt on Wall Street that
Kodak itself will survive! There is talk of selling it off, piece by piece.
So much for thinking that Kodak will always be there to support PhotoCD!

There is already a new term, "Digital Archaeology," to describe the process
of reading and decoding obsolete file formats! That may work for
Universities and Museums, but what is the chance that any of our descendents
will bother to take our image files to a University to see what is on the
media, 50 years from now? More likely that someone will look at that big
box filled with those old things called CDs and just chuck them into the
trash one day! And with it will go tons of irreplaceable memories!

The lowly negative may, uncer certain circumstances, outlive the image file!
We just don't know how this is all going to work itself out, because for the
first time in human history, we are putting our history into a format that
we know will become obsolete, and which will require future generations to
care for it--by migrating the files to new formats as they come into use,
and also by storing those files on whatever storage media is then being used
(CDs won't be manufactured forever--just like the 78 RPM record is no longer
made). And that migration process will have to be repeated at least once
per generation, or the material will eventually fall into oblivion!

I have read one expert that suggested that our generation, with all of its
sophisticated storage technology, may end being the worst-documented
generation in history, because all of our information may be lost to
posterity.

We won't really know how accurate his prediction is for another half century
or so.


 
Reply With Quote
 
AArDvarK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2004

I agree with .TIF as the final format. But as far as
..FPX ... Irfanview opens it, and makes thumbnails
from them as well. I have many centerfold scans
in fpx, works great. Just also download the plugin
package (...I think).
http://www.irfanview.com/
--
Sincerely,
Alex
------------------------------
e-mail address not given,
reply here.
------------------------------

"Jeremy"
> If your time line is 5 years or under, than virtually any non-lossy format
> will suffice. The risk is that you may find it very difficult to decode
> proprietary formats in the future, especially if they fall out of use or are
> abandoned, like FlashPix was.
>
> Already there are reports of early compressed TIF files that do not open in
> all graphic software. PhotoShop or Paint Shop Pro formats are fine for
> now--but who knows if they'll even be around in 50 years?
>
> I've reviewed the digitization procedures of several major libraries, and
> the consensus seems to be to save in uncompressed TIF format for the long
> haul. I had previously been saving my files in FlashPix format (it was the
> closest thing to Kodak's PhotoCD format) but the consortium that created
> FlashPix fell apart a couple of years ago, and the format is dead. Try to
> get a FlashPix plug-in so you can view those images in your web browser . .
> .
>
> Remember all the old word processor formats, like Word Perfect for DOS or
> Multi-Mate? How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, which was once THE
> spreadsheet program used by every business with a PC? Try to read those
> files now--even current Lotus 1-2-3 can't read the old DOS files!
>
> If long-term file readability is important to you, I'd suggest that you
> follow the crowd and stick with UNCOMPRESSED TIF. On the other hand, if you
> are looking at a short time horizon, there are a number of good formats that
> you can consider.
>
> This issue is far from resolved, and it is causing archivists all around the
> world to have many sleepless nights. But for right now, TIF seems the
> archival format of choice.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
AArDvarK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2004

..... oh and don't forget ... as "soon" as the Earth itself
reaches the center of the galaxy, it will also be destroyed
... pertinent to that "black hole" thing ... nothing will
even matter then ...
--
Sincerely,
Alex
------------------------------
e-mail address not given,
reply here.
------------------------------

"Jeremy"
> I first became aware of how fragile data was when I read an article in "The
> New Yorker" magazine a couple of years ago. Our federal government has lost
> tons of data due to proprietary formats and proprietary storage media--where
> the vendors have gone out of business, leaving users of their proprietary
> data hanging.
>
> Parts of the 1970 census are unreadable, because the vendor that provided
> the data tapes and recording/playback equipment is gone, and no one can
> provide the Government with the appropriate playback equipment.
>
> A ton of the last mission to Mars has been lost, because of equipment
> incompatibility problems.
>
> When Clinton and Gore were about to leave office, the National Archives
> started a project to preserve their emails. There were millions of them,
> and the Government PRINTED THEM OUT onto paper, then microfilmed the paper!
> Microfilm has a useful life of over 500 years under proper storage
> conditions, and all one needs to read the film is a light and a magnifier.
>
> The Kodak PCD format (Photo CD) is now only 10 years old, and virtually no
> one is making Photo CDs anymore (I'm referring to the Kodak product--people
> are now scanning and saving their own images, at a much cheaper price than
> Kodak charges). That format will be completely dead in another 10 years,
> and it is only a matter of time before no software will be able to read
> those files. So much for archiving photos using a proprietary format (You
> cannot buy software that saves files in PCD format--only software that can
> read it.). And this is a product that Kodak has invested millions of
> dollars to promote! Right now, there is serious doubt on Wall Street that
> Kodak itself will survive! There is talk of selling it off, piece by piece.
> So much for thinking that Kodak will always be there to support PhotoCD!
>
> There is already a new term, "Digital Archaeology," to describe the process
> of reading and decoding obsolete file formats! That may work for
> Universities and Museums, but what is the chance that any of our descendents
> will bother to take our image files to a University to see what is on the
> media, 50 years from now? More likely that someone will look at that big
> box filled with those old things called CDs and just chuck them into the
> trash one day! And with it will go tons of irreplaceable memories!
>
> The lowly negative may, uncer certain circumstances, outlive the image file!
> We just don't know how this is all going to work itself out, because for the
> first time in human history, we are putting our history into a format that
> we know will become obsolete, and which will require future generations to
> care for it--by migrating the files to new formats as they come into use,
> and also by storing those files on whatever storage media is then being used
> (CDs won't be manufactured forever--just like the 78 RPM record is no longer
> made). And that migration process will have to be repeated at least once
> per generation, or the material will eventually fall into oblivion!
>
> I have read one expert that suggested that our generation, with all of its
> sophisticated storage technology, may end being the worst-documented
> generation in history, because all of our information may be lost to
> posterity.
>
> We won't really know how accurate his prediction is for another half century
> or so.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2004
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:48:33 +0000, in rec.photo.digital Donald Gray
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
>occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
>PSD as my prefered format.


>I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
>non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)


As others have suggested, TIFF might be the best long term archival storage
format. Though I have my own thoughts on this also. However you
specifically said, "Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP
or PSD format." Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
should consider saving in the native format of your editor. This allows you
to not only append editing steps , but will allow you to undo some/most of
them assuming you make use of layers. Once you convert this to a flat file
format such as TIFF that info is lost and you'll need to go back to the
original image to regain that altered info. Whether you should consider
this depends on the level of editing you are talking about and how you
weigh the cost of additional storage space vs your time over your
collection of images. Don't forget, what works for you now, may not be best
choice a year from now as you habits change.
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
http://members.cox.net/egruf
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Flycaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2004

"Ed Ruf" <EG*nospam*(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> As others have suggested, TIFF might be the best long term archival

storage
> format. Though I have my own thoughts on this also. However you
> specifically said, "Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP
> or PSD format." Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
> should consider saving in the native format of your editor. This allows

you
> to not only append editing steps , but will allow you to undo some/most of
> them assuming you make use of layers. Once you convert this to a flat file
> format such as TIFF that info is lost and you'll need to go back to the
> original image to regain that altered info. Whether you should consider
> this depends on the level of editing you are talking about and how you
> weigh the cost of additional storage space vs your time over your
> collection of images. Don't forget, what works for you now, may not be

best
> choice a year from now as you habits change.


Not that I disagree with any of this, but Photoshop has been able to save
layered TIFF's since Ver.7.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2004

"Flycaster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4019b38e$(E-Mail Removed)...

>>Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
> > should consider saving in the native format of your editor.


When I recommended TIF as an archival format, I was primarily thinking of
the original, unedited image, as it came out of the camera, before any type
of editing was done to it. This unedited image was the equivalent of a
"digital negative." That image should be stored in an archival format, and
right now TIF seems to be the format of choice among Universities, Museums,
Libraries and Archives.

As far as the EDITED version(s), they can be stored in the editor's
proprietary format, to allow for further editing, if desired. But those
files are at risk of being obsoleted sooner than a TIF file will be. If you
are going to do additional editing within a 5-year time frame, it's OK to
use a proprietary format, but there can be no long-term guarantee that you
will be able to edit those files, say, 20 years down the road.

In addition, there will certainly be better editing software in the future,
and you will want to re-edit the original file, not a file that you already
edited. The original file has all the pixels that were originally there.

For archival purposes, it is essential to save the original file, before any
pixels were discarded. In the long run, this unedited file will be much
more valuable than anything that is edited today, no matter how good a job
was done on the editing. In the future, that original unedited file can be
edited by anyone.


 
Reply With Quote
 
AArDvarK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2004

Donald (and all) another good idea is to
store your files on solid gold cd-r's that
do not corrode over time like aluminum
will ... Mitsui brand on this site, where
they are the cheapest:
http://www.inkjetart.com/ There are
time limitations on standard discs.
--
Sincerely,
Alex
------------------------------
e-mail address not given,
reply here.
------------------------------

"Donald Gray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
> occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
> PSD as my prefered format.
>
> I only save them as a JPG _IF_ and only if I want to put them on the
> web or email them, otherwise file size is generally not an issue.
>
> I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
> non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)
>
>
> --
> Donald Gray
> Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
> www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
> You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
> Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
> Thanks



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Convert TIFF-YC to TIFF-RGB Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley Digital Photography 11 06-27-2010 04:23 PM
BMP to TIFF or TIFF to BMP- any loss? Jenna Topping Digital Photography 5 01-23-2005 01:18 AM
Tool for converting 12-bit TIFF images to 16-bit TIFF-images? Peter Frank Digital Photography 11 12-13-2004 02:41 AM
jpeg to tiff and back to tiff ARosenblat Digital Photography 6 01-09-2004 08:53 PM
Image::Info::TIFF - multi-page tiff images page count ifiaz Perl Misc 1 11-19-2003 05:25 AM



Advertisments