best format to save files as?

hello all. ive recently been organizing all of my files and have begun to somewhat get it all sorted out. ill be using photoshop to pp all of my pictures. my question is what format is best to save the finished picture as? reason im asking is because i used to save some as jpeg but if i needed to come back at a later time they would sorta be useless, but if i only kept the raw then id have to start all over again and never get the final image the same as the first time i did the pp. can anyone suggest anything?

filename.psd = Photoshop (Proprietory)
filename.tif = TIFF (Universal)

Either format can be saved with layers intact (increases file size) so you can go back and tweak as you need.

cool thanx. do these formats kill hd space?

Yes because they are "lossless" meaning there is no compression like there is saving in JPEG.

Storage is cheap though.

1ruffryder wrote in post #8686676
hello all. ive recently been organizing all of my files and have begun to somewhat get it all sorted out. ill be using photoshop to pp all of my pictures. my question is what format is best to save the finished picture as? reason im asking is because i used to save some as jpeg but if i needed to come back at a later time they would sorta be useless, but if i only kept the raw then id have to start all over again and never get the final image the same as the first time i did the pp. can anyone suggest anything?

Every RAW converter will let you save your edits as a sort of text file alongside of the RAW so you won't lose the work you've done. However, the various converters do this in different ways. Lightroom automatically keeps track of everything you do, even if you make a change and then undo it it's listed, and all this "History" is recorded in a database. The next time you open that RAW it will be just as you left it, but you can return to any earlier stage in the History. Adobe Camera RAW (PSCS) uses indidual xmp files that are linked the RAW instead of one big database. DPP gives you a choice; either the edits are saved in the metadata section of the RAW file itself - superceding but not overwriting the editing info written by the camera, so you can always return to square one if you wish - or you can save the edits in a separate small file that can later be loaded not only for the original RAW, but any other RAW as well.

All this means that I don't need to save jpgs. If one day I decide to send an image to Aunt Ethel or to SuperDuperPix, I open the RAW, convert to jpg, send it off and delete it (the jpg). Only the RAW is saved. The one exception to this practice is if I need or want to do some editing that the RAW converter can't handle. In that case I am forced to make a tif that after editing gets stored next to the RAW.

Thanks for the info! and great question...

Let me get the steps straight:

If I want to open a raw file and edit, using photoshop cs4, (I.e clean up skin and undereyes with clone stamp) then I will need to first convert raw image into .tiff or .psd . Am I correct?

Will these file names (.tiff or .psd) keep the image as clear and good contrast no matter how many times I edit and save it?
I am new to the .raw thing, and before was wondering why each time I edit and save .jpeg it looks more blurry

How about when I put final image on my website. I'll need .jpeg . so from .psd to the 1st generation .jpeg is it the same quality?

Like was said, a 16 bit tiff or a PSD are the highest quality option for image editing and allow you to preserve layers -- if you save a file with layers before converting it to an 8 bit jpeg for a final output you will have all your work that you can revisit at any time.

The tradeoff is, as was said, very large files. In fact, some people choose to shrink their files down by flattening layers -- they are not interested in "revisiting" what they considered finished work and prefer the smaller file size. Each person chooses their own work flow.

Many of us have become so accustomed to the Raw workflow that we spend a lot less time in the Photoshop editor than we used to. Lightroom and CS4 Camera Raw have very powerful tools that for a lot of us do all we need on most of our files. The great majority of my shots I put onto the Web are processed and exported jpegs straight out of Lightroom, so I don't have my space clutered with a lot of tiff copies. I go to Photoshop when I need to, but it's not a habit any more.

I use 8 bit psd files, just because they're smaller than tiff. 16 bit doubles file size and rarely gives a practical advantage.

I save two of each image out of LR2,

I save 1 jpg file for web use (resized) and 1 file of .tiff for future/prints

The Mack wrote in post #8691779
I save 1 jpg file for web use (resized) and 1 file of .tiff for future/prints

You save every image as a TIFF? That seems a bit wasteful since you can develop from raw any time. Also I print from jpeg since it looks as good as a tiff and it's easier to send to the lab.

thanx everyone. ive tried the .tiff and the .psd. both seem to work great as all the layers are saved. only issue im having now is that when i now click on the original raw all i get is the final product as in all the work that was done in the raw file and not the original raw. am i doing something wrong?

The changes you made to the raw file have been saved in the xmp file. Just hit the reset to default link in ACR and it'll be the same as it was to start with. RAW files are read only.

tim wrote in post #8691873
You save every image as a TIFF? That seems a bit wasteful since you can develop from raw any time. Also I print from jpeg since it looks as good as a tiff and it's easier to send to the lab.

Wasteful of what? space? memory is cheap.
Not every image, but I'd say at least 85%

Some images I have no intentions of printing, so I just save a jpg.

The Mack wrote in post #8694346
Wasteful of what? space? memory is cheap.

What Tim means (I think) and I fully agree on, is that it's not needed to convert a CR2 to tiff and save that tif: That's easily done when you need to print again.
Obviously this is different when a lot of work is done on the converted file, and you want to keep a layered file. But that is another issue

Also: I'd wager that you'ld be hard pressed to see the difference between two prints, one of a maximum quality jpg, one of a 16bpc tif. I'd also wager that nobody will be able to tell the difference between the two prints if the tif were 8bpc.

Yep I meant what Rene said. I guess my perspective is different, since I take about 50,000 photos a year, that'd be about 1.75TB if they were TIFF files. Keeping them as RAW files it's closer to 400GB.