Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 18 Nov 2014 (Tuesday) 13:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16 bit vs 8 bit

 
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,928 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 19, 2014 13:07 |  #16

Once a file is created it doesn't degrade. What they mean is if you export a file, open it, edit it, then save it again, jpeg will lose some small amount of detail. This loss is invisible to the human eye unless you do it many times, or use high compression.

The best general approach is save anything you want to edit in Photoshop as a TIFF or PSD. Edit the file, and save as a jpeg for printing or distribution. If you think you'll edit it in future keep the TIFF, otherwise the jpeg will be just fine.

For example with my wedding images if I spend less than a minute or two editing I don't bother to save as PSD because I can recreate easily. More than that I save as PSD in case I want to go back later.

But what you're doing is fine, so long as you're happy with the disk space use.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
monkey44
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
724 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2003
     
Nov 19, 2014 15:52 |  #17

tim wrote in post #17281665 (external link)
But what you're doing is fine, so long as you're happy with the disk space use.

I store images in SSD - two identical copies. it's not a hassle, and the expense is one I'm willing to carry. It's like 'tools' ... when you need a tool (image) you need it. But, I'm more a writer than a photographer in the truest sense, and I support my documentary field work with images.

As an aside: I was researching a project for a news magazine years ago (1991) -- and they sent a photographer out with me. I discovered she got the same pay as me, and she spent four hours, I spent four days in the field (a water resources project in Sierras) ... So, I thought, OK, I'll buy a camera and double my income.

Well, that didn't happen quite as I expected. But the idea emerged that I could sell my writing packages easier to an editor if I offered both words AND photos. Turned out to be true, but the idea that a photographer works less hours for more money wasn't quite as true as it first appeared. And equipment factored in changed that dynamic -- but once I got into the photos, it doubled the enjoyment I experienced in my work... and in fact, it did increase the pay portion as well ...

And one more aside: Was selling a story that originated in California to a news magazine in Boston -- it so happened I had appropriate photos from that town in my storage that were almost ten years old (Film scans) -- But I included words and images, and sold a two ten-years-old photos with the story. So, it pays to keep your images ... even if you think "NO, I'll never have a use for these again." You just never know.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,928 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 19, 2014 16:28 |  #18

I would archive to an offsite spinning disk or cloud backup if I was you. SSDs fail quickly - one has failed on me with little warning.

Nice story :)


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
emalvick
Member
43 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2012
     
Nov 20, 2014 16:32 |  #19

I'm not sure there would be an advantage to an 8 bit Tiff as opposed to a standard JPG.

My own workflow involves working in 16-bit as much as possible and saving the final product in 8-bit JPG. If I think I might need to work on an image later, I'll keep a Tiff or PSD file until I'm done. I figure there is no harm in working in 16-bit while you have it even if there may be no noticeable improvement. It's available, and I feel better about the end product.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,412 posts
Likes: 1786
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 20, 2014 16:38 |  #20

emalvick wrote in post #17284130 (external link)
I'm not sure there would be an advantage to an 8 bit Tiff as opposed to a standard JPG..

8 bit tiff file compresses without loss or is not compressed. Jpegs compression is not perfect and data is lost.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,928 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 20, 2014 17:08 |  #21

gjl711 wrote in post #17284145 (external link)
8 bit tiff file compresses without loss of is not compressed. Jpegs compression is not perfect and data is lost.

Your post is rather confusing. Unsure what you're trying to say exactly, but here's what I think you mean:
- TIFF files (8 or 16 bit) can be compressed using various algorithms - LZW, ZIP, or none. This compression is lossless.
- Jpeg compression is lossy. Highest quality jpeg compression is close to lossless, but not completely. A dozen save/load cycles of Q12 jpeg files produces no visible degradation to my eye.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,412 posts
Likes: 1786
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 20, 2014 17:10 |  #22

tim wrote in post #17284199 (external link)
Your post is rather confusing. Unsure what you're trying to say exactly, but here's what I think you mean:
- TIFF files (8 or 16 bit) can be compressed using various algorithms - LZW, ZIP, or none. This compression is lossless.
- Jpeg compression is lossy. Highest quality jpeg compression is close to lossless, but not completely. A dozen save/load cycles of Q12 jpeg files produces no visible degradation to my eye.

yup


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
724 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2003
     
Nov 20, 2014 18:17 |  #23

tim wrote in post #17284199 (external link)
Your post is rather confusing. Unsure what you're trying to say exactly, but here's what I think you mean:
- TIFF files (8 or 16 bit) can be compressed using various algorithms - LZW, ZIP, or none. This compression is lossless.
- Jpeg compression is lossy. Highest quality jpeg compression is close to lossless, but not completely. A dozen save/load cycles of Q12 jpeg files produces no visible degradation to my eye.

Guess it's not that confusing Tim - you got it -- that's exactly what I mean in the big picture ... but my question was about 8 bit vs 16 bit, and it's been answered. Lots of great info on this site -- thanks guys ... B

PS: I do use the files (images) more than one project -- that's why I want to have no loss of definition. I open the tiff, and work it as a copy each time and leave the original in an untouched file. And, can always make a new tiff from the RAW file, which is also saved as an original.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,928 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 20, 2014 18:31 |  #24

monkey44 wrote in post #17284297 (external link)
Guess it's not that confusing Tim - you got it -- that's exactly what I mean in the big picture ... but my question was about 8 bit vs 16 bit, and it's been answered. Lots of great info on this site -- thanks guys ... B

I knew what he was trying to say, but it was so unclear I thought it worth typing out.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alucardis666
Member
Avatar
31 posts
Joined Apr 2014
     
Nov 21, 2014 13:28 |  #25

Simple. More bits = better.


CAMERA BAG
Panasonic GH4 + Metz 52AF-1
Panasonic 25mm F1.7 II
Olympus 45mm F1.8
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,928 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 21, 2014 17:04 |  #26

Alucardis666 wrote in post #17285593 (external link)
Simple. More bits = better.

More bits = finer graduation of colors, with the downside of being double the size on disk.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,559 posts
Likes: 298
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Nov 22, 2014 07:22 |  #27

Alucardis666 wrote in post #17285593 (external link)
Simple. More bits = better.

Well, many tools/programs don't support 16 bit. Some of them will, if you purchase their most expensive version (e.g. Portrait Pro).




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

3,748 views & 0 likes for this thread
16 bit vs 8 bit
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Mithaniel
814 guests, 347 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.