Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 28 Dec 2017 (Thursday) 17:12
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Managing huge TIF files

 
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Chula Vista, CA
Dec 31, 2017 16:16 |  #31

digital paradise wrote in post #18530364 (external link)
So you save and bring them back into LR for export? Yeah storage is so cheap these days.

I export a Tiff to Ps, and then re-save it after editing. It shows up in whichever editor I'm using. If I want to export it to flickr or 500px I use the Lr plugins.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Dec 31, 2017 16:25 |  #32

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18530352 (external link)
Personally, I just export to TIFF for editing and use Lr to export jpegs for web or print. I don't bother deleting the TIFF files, I just buy a new drives as they fill up, 1TB at a time. I have a full ATX tower so there is plenty of room for SSDs in there. ;-)a


digital paradise wrote in post #18530364 (external link)
So you save and bring them back into LR for export? Yeah storage is so cheap these days.

Same here, if I need to go to Ps then I just keep the full 16 bit file, with layers, and use that to export my finished images to JPEG as and when needed. In my case though I use .PSD instead of TIFF.

One thing that I will add is that some time ago I did some tests to assess the results from using all of the 13 possible levels of JPEG compression, compared to the original image in 8 bit, saved as a TIFF. Yes it was possible to see a difference in the R, G, and B values for many pixels when using the top three levels of JPEG quality; 10, 11, and 12. So the results of encoding from the original in each case were different. What was interesting though was not the comparison between the different JPEG files, but the comparison back to the original uncompressed 8 bit data.

What really stood out was the fact that although the specific channel values were different in each JPEG file, the level of deviation from the original data was identical across all three levels of compression. The only thing that really changed between them was the specific pixel location for any variation. Most pixels would not normally have more than one channel with a variation, and most of the variations were either ±1. I don't think I could find any cases where the deviation from the original was higher than ±5 or 6.

Given the way that JPEG works, using a maximum value results in a file with no compression, so the file size is the same as the TIFF. If you move to level 10 though you get a significant reduction in file size, for no measurable increase in deviation from the original pixel values compared to using the highest quality setting. Using a setting of Q10 though will give you a file size reduction of between 40% and 60% depending on image content.

So if you are going to convert the image to JPEG you should use Q10 as your highest setting, since it is impossible to measure the difference between quality of that compared with a maximum quality setting file, but it could result in a file that is less than half the size! Needless to say you really cannot perceive the differences between any of the images from any of the files. I did it with images with both lots of very fine detail, and areas of very large smooth gradients.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
THREAD ­ STARTER
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Dec 31, 2017 16:38 |  #33

MalVeauX wrote in post #18530341 (external link)
I keep the RAWs (eventually cull RAWs I have no need for, to only keep ones I may return to), and work from the TIF files I create from the RAWs. Once my JPG output from that processed TIF is finalized, I keep the JPG and I delete the TIF. If it's something I'm casually working on over time, that's different and I keep the PSD for that. But that's not something you're doing with every shot you take. I delete all the TIF files though eventually when I'm done with any printing or JPG sharing. So every 2~3 months, I simply cull the TIF files out in a single swoop.

Very best,

The first step for me is to discard as many RAWs as I can. Basically, I'm trying to keep my my keeper rate down but seriously raise their quality. After any session, I usually come up with clusters of images that are fundamentally similar. I try to cull each of those clusters down to maybe one or, at most, two shots before I do any actual image editing.

The way I see it, if a day's shooting gives me even just one shot that really stands out at the end of years and years of doing this stuff, then that was a very successful day.

So the the hard part for me is being tough enough on myself about deleting RAWs before I go into the rest of the post processing thing. It's not easy but with every session I'm managing to wind up my 'kill rate' a fraction of a notch.


Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
Cream of the Crop
digital paradise's Avatar
12,483 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Joined Oct 2009
Dec 31, 2017 16:43 |  #34

DaviSto wrote in post #18530396 (external link)
The first step for me is to discard as many RAWs as I can. Basically, I'm trying to keep my my keeper rate down but seriously raise their quality. After any session, I usually come up with clusters of images that are fundamentally similar. I try to cull each of those clusters down to maybe one or, at most, two shots before I do any actual image editing.

The way I see it, if a day's shooting gives me even just one shot that really stands out at the end of years and years of doing this stuff, then that was a very successful day.

So the the hard part for me is being tough enough on myself about deleting RAWs before I go into the rest of the post processing thing. It's not easy but with every session I'm managing to wind up my 'kill rate' a fraction of a notch.

Me too. Except for travel images I cull quite a bit before even importing into LR. I like the look of Canon's DPP - quick check - full screen so I use it.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
THREAD ­ STARTER
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Dec 31, 2017 16:55 |  #35

digital paradise wrote in post #18530399 (external link)
Me too. Except for travel images I cull quite a bit before even importing into LR. I like the look of Canon's DPP - quick check - full screen so I use it.

I take the point about travel images ... that's memories.

I think that where I would like to get to is a point where I only keep RAWs for images that I firmly intend to print. Everything else is ephemeral. Of course, I might share digital versions of images I intend to print for people to view on screen. But, if it's not worth printing, it's not worth sharing in any other format, I believe.

"Firmly intend" is a bit 'soft' I know and gives me a get-out. But at least I am trying.


Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
THREAD ­ STARTER
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Dec 31, 2017 18:09 |  #36

By way of a side note, I think the "storage is cheap" argument is a trap. It's like arguing you don't need to sort out your ever accumulating personal stuff because your attic is growing in volume every year.

Actually, we do need to get rid of stuff and a huge attic is not an asset.

Year-by-year, we need to decide what we want to keep close by us and what we are ready to to let go.

Keeping things lean (focusing on what is really important) is a good plan in life ... and in photography.


Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Pippan
Senior Member
Pippan's Avatar
Joined Oct 2015
Darwin, Straya
Dec 31, 2017 18:51 |  #37

DaviSto wrote in post #18530452 (external link)
By way of a side note, I think the "storage is cheap" argument is a trap. It's like arguing you don't need to sort out your ever accumulating personal stuff because your attic is growing in volume every year.

Actually, we do need to get rid of stuff and a huge attic is not an asset.

Year-by-year, we need to decide what we want to keep close by us and what we are ready to to let go.

Keeping things lean (focusing on what is really important) is a good plan in life ... and in photography.

Sounds like a new year's resolution! Happy New Year!




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,711 views & 2 likes for this thread
Managing huge TIF files
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00076 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is Chris Soto
967 guests, 478 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017