Archive format RAW vs .tiff

[pixelator]

Hello, this is my first post here. I replaced my point-and-shoot coolpix with a Cannon 20D and so I'm new to the RAW format this camera allows. I'm curious as to what you all think is the better format for picture archives, RAW or .tiff? Thanks for your imput!

pixelator

[Hellashot]

I on keep my images in RAW format unless I have a special adjustment/crop that I'll save in TIFF. I only backup my images on DVD in RAW mode because a 16bit TIFF for my Drebel is 36MB vs. 6MB RAW which is the reason cameras have gone to allowing RAW recording vs. TIFF - file size.

[PhotosGuy]

Since RawShooter saves the conversion data, I won't save a Tiff that has no major corrections made after conversion. OTOH, if I've got a lot of work into the file with several selections & layers, I'll keep it on the HD, even if it's 100MB. If it's halfway in between & I can't make up my mind, I'll save it to CD.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I save both usually...

I save the RAW files because I find I can usually go back and make a better finished file if I put my mind to it...

But on the other hand I don't want to throw out several minutes of PS work,. so I'll save the Tiff / .psd file as well.

Gets cumbersome,. but DVD-R media is cheap.

Photosguy,. your point about saving the conversion data is something I had not considered. I am indeed archiving the ".rw" folders that RawShooter is making ..

My only concern there is that a year from now I may not be using RAWshooter. That plus all the tweeking in PSCS is not archived, so yes,. I'll save both as well.

[scottbergerphoto]

I save the Raw and the edited Tiff file on DVD-R.

[Jesper]

I save only the RAW files from my 10D and I make backups on an external harddisk and also on DVD-R's.

A RAW file contains 12 bits per colour channel of information for each pixel, so if you want to archive your photos as TIFF and you want to save all the information that was available in the original RAW file, you should use 16 bit TIFFs (instead of 8 bit TIFFs).

A 16 bit TIFF file is HUGE (36 MB for my converted 10D files), so you will run out of storage space very quickly if you do this with all your RAW photos....

[rdenney]

Hello, this is my first post here. I replaced my point-and-shoot coolpix with a Cannon 20D and so I'm new to the RAW format this camera allows. I'm curious as to what you all think is the better format for picture archives, RAW or .tiff? Thanks for your imput!

I tried to answer this earlier, but apparently POTN burped.

RAW is like your negative. When you convert to TIFF, you lose some information that was in the RAW file. Thus, I hate to get rid of the RAW files.

But the TIFF (actually the PSD file from Photoshop) represents all my effort at correction and manipulation to achieve my visualization of the final image. If I lose that, I have to start all over again, but at least I have the RAW file which gives me all the same raw materials I had before.

And then there are the copies of the PSD/TIFF file that are targeted for particular output devices, including those corrected for certain printers and scaled for certain print sizes, and low-res images for web display. Those also represent effort that would be a pain to do over.

So, I end up archiving all of it.

But if I were to archive only one file, it would be the RAW file. A side benefit to that is that the RAW file doesn't repeat itself, so it's a more efficient storage approach than TIFF or other pure uncompressed bitmaps. RAW files are about a third the size of TIFF files, even though it contains more information.

Rick "who never throws away his negatives even after he has a print he likes" Denney

[robertwgross]

I shoot RAW files. Once transferred to the computer, those are converted to TIF files. The original RAW files are burned to CDR as soon as there are 700MB worth. The TIF files are edited and then copied for archival purposes. Sometimes they exist on two or three hard disks or DVD disks, just depending on their value. Eventually, the RAW files are no longer needed for any repeated conversion, so they are erased from the hard disk.

Repeated conversion means a second or third conversion. Generally, the first conversion gets exposure right on. Sometimes I go back and convert again to nudge in some exposure or other factor.

---Bob Gross---

[scottbergerphoto]

I can't even imagine re-editing all my files. I save all my edited 16 bit tiff files with the Raw files. DVD-R's are cheap. You can save space if you need to by saving them as .PSD files, PS's native file.

[Hellashot]

I can't even imagine re-editing all my files. I save all my edited 16 bit tiff files with the Raw files. DVD-R's are cheap. You can save space if you need to by saving them as .PSD files, PS's native file.

Some of us don't "edit" our images. I believe in correcting exposure, because of systematic underexposure, and sharpening - and that's it! Anything beyond that is altering what your subject was.

[scottbergerphoto]

Some of us don't "edit" our images. I believe in correcting exposure, because of systematic underexposure, and sharpening - and that's it! Anything beyond that is altering what your subject was.
Thanks. That's very funny. I'm burning my Photoshop CD's at this very moment! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dispatchermike21]

Some of us don't "edit" our images. I believe in correcting exposure, because of systematic underexposure, and sharpening - and that's it! Anything beyond that is altering what your subject was.

Even when I did FILM I edited my photos when developing and printing so why not with digital? I save ALL my files my wife think I save to much.

[PhotosGuy]

I can't even imagine re-editing all my files. I know what you mean! But it seems that most of the critical PS edits can be done in Rawshooter & saved, so I don't mind for the simple shots. I just re-read the RS .doc again & it cleared up some of the issues I had with the program. I think this will become my default RAW editor/converter.

[rdenney]

Some of us don't "edit" our images. I believe in correcting exposure, because of systematic underexposure, and sharpening - and that's it! Anything beyond that is altering what your subject was.

So, you never dodged or burned in a print? Used a polarizing filter or other colored filter? Adjusted the edges of the frame to exclude what you didn't want to show (even if was part of the story)?

How very pure of you.

Rick "Ansel Adams: The negative is the music, and the print is the performance" Denney

[tim]

I save RAW/CR2 files, but the issue with that is in 2/5/20 years they probably won't be readable. IIRC PS CS has already dropped support for the D30 camera in its latest RAW convertor. I guess at some point i'll convert all my RAW files to Adobe DNG files using their convertor, and use that as an archival format.

TIFF's too big for me for archival. If you shoot a wedding and get 4-6GB of RAW that's 30GB or more of TIFF files. A pro even doing 2GB/RAW per shoot and 30 per year would reach 360GB per year.

[jukas]

As of now I archive all my RAW files permanently.. HDD and DVD-R is too cheap for me not to. I have my main /Images/ folder and then I create a subfolder for the shoot. Under that I create two subfolders, one called RAW and one called Masters. RAW is where I place all my raw images (I'm considering converting them to .DNG but haven't done it yet).

Anything I want to post process is convereted to 16bit TIFF file through C1, I then open them in PS CS, save them to a .psd file in the /masters/ folder and do any post processing as adjustment layers. The only aside from conversion that I deal with a TIFF file is if I want to print a image. Then I'll open the master .psd, duplicate the image (to be sure I don't make any changes to my master), sharpen (I never sharpen my master, and only sharpen at output), flatten all layers and save it as a tiff file.

The only thing that's changed from the master.psd to the tiff is flattening and sharpening, and even though the .psd's are usually 2-3x the size I'm happy to trade the HDD space for the ability to keep all my layers.