File :-(, x, )
Lossless file format -- Which one? Anonymous
You take a photo with a Digital SRL. That photo is saved in RAW format.

You open that RAW file in photoshop, make a few minor contrast/level/etc. changes and decide to keep it.

What lossless file format do you recommend saving it as? Which lossless file format compresses the best and/or is used by professional photographers?

Any advice for this newb is appreciated.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>111292
The OP is probably Asian.
>> Anonymous
TIFF would be the best choice for archiving. PSD is proprietary and while support for it is fairly good, you can never be sure about its future compatibility.

On the other hand, if all you did was use the Camera Raw importer, I'd recommend keeping it as a RAW and just exporting the dialog settings. The RAW file will probably be a lot smaller than a TIFF or PSD would, and you can go back into the wizard and tweak it later from the original.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
What about this new file format, HD Photo, which should replace jpg in some unkown future?

I've read it's like TIFF and JEPG had a baby.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
I usually go with PSD unless it's going for publication, in which case I usually send files in tiff format (especially if it needs to be CMYK). DNG is great, but I work largely in B&W with a lot of localized adjustments and duotones, so PSD makes the most sense for me.

For people shooting RAW and sticking with standard adjustments, DNG makes a ton of sense. Get and read the Bruce Fraser book "Camera RAW" regarding the Photoshop function of the same name, internalize it, and things will be a hell of a lot easier for you.

It is also important to consider colorspace. Adobe RGB, for example has too narrow a color gamut to properly accommodate a lot of images. To this end, the wider gamut of ProPhoto RGB makes a lot more sense.
>> Anonymous
How does Singer Rens Leflex know what Owlu is?
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
>>111464
That'll be nice for the web but it's still too lossy for archival uses.
>> Anonymous
>>111299
What qualities does PNG have that make it unsuitable for photographs?

I use PSD for storage, and resized PNG for on-screen viewing copies. No problems.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111504
The fact that it's lossless, meaning that pictures are XBOXHUEG despite the fact that the human eye can't tell them from an order-of-magnitude-smaller first-generation JPEG.
>> Anonymous
JPG degradation with resaving is hugely overblown. It's not that much of a problem.
>> Anonymous
>>111508
Not X-Box Hueg at small display resolutions.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111511
Okay, so you have to choose between a normal sized picture or a thumbnail for the same file size.
>> Anonymous
>>111513
Not a thumbnail. Something for display on a computer monitor, for myself and for places where bandwith isn't an issue.

Somewhere between 700-1000 pixels on the longest size is about right for a photograph to be displayed on a computer monitor with no browser resizing or anything. I usually do 750, large enough to show detail but small enough so one can take in the whole frame at once.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111514
Still an order of magnitude larger, and for no visible benefit.
>> Anonymous
>>111516
1. Storage is cheap. Picked up a 250GB hard drive a couple weeks ago for $84.somethingorother after tax. A 100 pack of DVDs will go for about fifty bucks.

2. It's not noticable on every shot, and someone not on the lookout for it wouldn't see the difference, but I have seen minor differences between PNGs I make for myself and a JPEG version for /p/.

3. I'm anal about this sort of thing. While there are differences, I will readily admit this is more an investment in piece of mind than image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>111518

"It's not noticable on every shot, and someone not on the lookout for it wouldn't see the difference, but I have seen minor differences between PNGs I make for myself and a JPEG version for /p/."

Then you are doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>111464

It has better compression that any other lossless format, and the lossy mode is optimised for photographs, so you'll get slightly better quality than jpeg.

>>111477

HD Photo can be lossless.

Im just reading up on it, and apparently the JPEG are considering using HD photo as the next generation "jpeg XR" format. Would be nice to have a standards body approve of it like that, get it out into the mainstream.
>> Anonymous
>>111539

Oh and one more thing, HD Photo supports 32bits per channel, thus if /p/ eventually supports this format, we will finally be able to post *real* HDR pictures.
Now if only our monitors displayed 32bits per channel...
>> Anonymous
>>111464
HD Photo is a microsoft abortion. No serious photographer would ever use this holocaust of a file format.
>> Anonymous
>>111527
Open .psd file.
Go to the resize command, and get that all done.
File, save as, JPEG.
Set quality to twelve.

How am I doing that wrong, exactly?

It's not a loss of detail I notice, but for some reason some images end up with some small changes in tone in some areas, usually the lower end of the midtones.
>> Anonymous
>>111552

You've got to sort out your color profiles. If you blast through on default it won't be careful with that.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111552
probably changing colour space.
>> Anonymous
No, everything I have is calibrated to sRGB.

It's nothing major, just a few pixels here and there look a bit different, like it just shifted the 0-255 thing by a few notches somewhere in the compression thing.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>111545

How come Microsoft makes JPEG XR a bad file format? (I know one reason, but I won't be telling you that.)

After all, it includes almost everything a über graphic format should have.
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
Really, what you want is a format which is lossless and which preserves layers and their structure. So anything which does not meet those requirements is automatically out for archival use.

You should be saving your images for archives as master files where they are either TIFF or PSD and are at the original output resolution of the capture device so that you have maximum flexibility when it comes to printing (you can always go smaller but going bigger presents a problem of having to interpolate). And preserving the layer structure allows you to add, subtract and edit layers with pixel data and adjustment layers in the event that more editing is required for final output or even if you learn a better editing technique to replace an older one you had used on the image.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
If the photos matter I always have the originals backed up straight away onto DVDs and a removable HDD, be they jpgs or RAW. That way it doesn't matter what I do to them how I save them, etc.

sRaw looks interesting.