Options for saving tiffs

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

What settings in the 'save as' dialogue for tiffs that would be recommended for use as archives and masters for prints? Image compression: LZW or ZIP and for Layer compression: ZIP or RLE?
Thanks
Jonathan

[Chri...@adobeforums.com]

ZIP and ZIP

Any compression will encounter problems if bits get mangled over time - but ZIP gets better compression.

Chris

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

…and uncompressed files open and save faster.

Chris will correct me if I'm wrong, but this is confirmed by my experience on different Macs over the last quarter of a century.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramon.
Are recommending using the none checkbox in the image compression for my tif master and archive files as a standard practice, as opposed to Chris' advise to use ZIP for both image and layer compression? Could this be explained.
Thanks again
Jonathan

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Basically, Disks are now reasonably cheap so unless you are short of storage space, you run less risk of file-corruption; and can both open and save files more quickly; if you do not use compression.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

Ann.
If I save tiffs with "none" checked for image compression, and the file has layers, would you recommend RLE or ZIP for the layer compression. Or, if image compression is "none", doesn't this even apply. I tried checking "none" for image compression and PS still shows the layer compression choices.
Jonathan

[Buko]

ZIP is the best for tiffs Layers or not

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

It seems that most agree that if you use compression then ZIP is the option both for image and layers. But, there seems to be some disagreement whether its better to use no compression at all vs. ZIP. So, I guess for layer compression ZIP seems to be the answer. But, for image, it could go either way.
Jonathan

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

for image, it could go either way?

My first choice would be "None" if I had the storage space — otherwise ZIP.

I normally use .tif only for single-layer (flat) Scans (so that I can edit them in ACR); I save Layered files as PSDs.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

Any reason you use psd for layers? That's the first reference to psd that has come up.
Jonathan

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Jon,

I'm recommending no such thing. I much prefer PSDs over TIFFs. Any PSD opens and saves faster than the corresponding TIFF copy.

[Mark_R...@adobeforums.com]

Its got nothing to do with Hard drive space, its about transfer rates. Try uploading ten 90 meg files onto a server using a UK broadband connection speeds.

[Jon_...@adobeforums.com]

Results of a few saves:
Original file no layers saved as psd = 34M
saved as uncompressed tif = 34M
ZIP tif = 26M
Original file with layers saved as psd = 89M
uncompressed tif/ZIP layer compression = 89M
ZIP compressed tif/ZIP layer compression = 81M
Uncompressed tiffs with or without layers gave VERY fast saves

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Chris,

Any compression will encounter problems if bits get mangled over time

This brings up an interesting point, as Photoshop .psd uses a proprietary, non-lossy scheme. Should we be concerned about archiving files as .psd?

Neil

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I have seen strange green/magenta moire-like patterns on bright areas in Camera RAW photographs that have been saved using the so-called "Lossless Compression".

I prefer to buy more, or bigger, cards and to always shoot un-compressed.

[Chri...@adobeforums.com]

PSD uses well documented lossless compression schemes, but some of the file structure is not well documented. If you want the files to last a hundred years, maybe PSD isn't the right archiving format. No compression is the most robust when it comes to corrupted bits - assuming you have all the space and time to work with files that way.

Moire like patterns are more likely due to the camera sensor than a lossless compression format.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

The image in which I saw those artifacts (they were a bit like a liquid-stain) was posted in the ACR forum a few months ago.

It was taken with a D3 (which is what I use) and I have never experienced that effect in my shots of similar subject matter (an against-the-light shot across a river) and I don't think that it was lens flare.

It may just be co-incidence, but that image had been shot with compression (which I don't use because it isn't necessary in a camera that supports twin cards and 32GB of space).

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Chris,

If you want the files to last a hundred years, maybe PSD isn't the right
archiving format.

Thanks for the straight response. So, for longer term archiving, would uncompressed TIF be the best bet? Archived to which medium/media?

Neil

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Archived to which medium/media

Which ever medium your best guess tells you will still be readable by a machine that is in existence in a hundred years' time?!

[Joking apart, this is a major issue for Institutions like the Library of Congress.]

[Mark_R...@adobeforums.com]

Lossless compression doesn't alter pixel values, that's why its referred to as lossless I imagine.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

One hundred years? ??? !!!

You're one optimistic creature if you plan on that basis. :D

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

For personal/family work, 150 years might be a reasonable starting goal for a family archive. ("And this is your great, great, great, great, great Aunt Tillie on your mother's side, who was a disgraced investment banker during the Great Recession of the early 21st century.") I'd be fairly upset if the century-old photos I have of my grandparents and other family simply crumbled to dust.

Of course, there are still many original photos created using various technologies from before the Civil War still in decent shape. I'd say that for critical institutional conservation where time is counted in multiple centuries, 500-1000 years or more might be the goal (just guessing!). We still have 550-year-old Bibles and paintings, and far older scrolls, frescos, parchments and hieroglyphics in their original readable form.

There is some irony in that reliable archiving of products of current digital technology is a real problem. Even if pixels can be placed on a particular medium (forget anything magnetic), will they be retrievable in the future? How long will CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays remain viable media? And will transferring data from them eventually be like trying to carefully coax sound off Edison cylinders and images off Autochromes? Or something difficult-to-impossible, like trying to restore high-quality data from 20/30-year-old decayed, dried and flaking 8-track cartridges, Beta and VHS tapes, diskettes, and early video formats?

If anyone cares about those ten-year-old videotapes of their wedding, the day before yesterday would have been the best time to transfer them to something more stable.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

For personal/family work, 150 years might be a reasonable starting goal
for a family archive.

For prints, sure. Just hope they last even half as long.

For files, no way. Try to open a Kodak PhotoDisk file on the latest software, or try to read a 5-1/4-inch floppy these days.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramón,

There is a two-fold problem. First is the stability of the particular medium used for storage as I detailed earlier; second is accessibility of the medium, as you point out.

I just threw a bunch of ten-year-old stock image CDs in the "for eBay" pile as it turns out they depend upon the proprietary Kodak format. That, plus some music cassettes, 78 rpm shellacs, and a bunch of Beta and VHS movies are going to be deleted from my household inventory. Although I have access to both videocassette format machines, I don't wish to spend the time to convert commercial videotapes to DVD. If I really want any of the films, I'll buy the Blu-Ray versions. I also have some 8mm films I made in college that I've kept for sentimental reasons. Short of holding them up to the light or paying $$$ to convert them, they're useless. I also have a few early, fuzzy, black-and-white, 1/4" reel-to-reel Uher videotapes. Try and find a player for those 25-year-old tapes!

I think most of us have a pile of similar old technology media in need of a reasonable way to play or convert them.

Some folks had old Kodachrome home movies, and a few years ago the thinking was to convert them to VHS tape, a "better" modern and more convenient format. No more schlepping out the ol' Bell & Howell. As these folks discovered about a decade later is that their irreplaceable VHS family archives were degrading due to cheap tapes, drying, flaking, heat, lack of/too much humidity, gamma rays, electromagnetic radiation, fast rewinding before storing, etc. Ironically, their old Kodachromes -- if they didn't discard them -- were actually in better shape.

And, for the moment, you can still easily find a used Kodak Carousel projector for your slides (discontinued 6/04).

As for current technology image files, file formats and storage media, I just don't think anyone can say for sure which will prevail into the distant future, without being orphaned or decomposing. PSD and especially TIF should be around for awhile -- but what medium do you save them to?

Neil

[JimGo...@adobeforums.com]

This is the one area where analog photography beats digital without a doubt. Properly take care of your images on film and they last for decades. What digital media can claim the same?

With libraries of images getting larger and larger, transferring them from one media to another will eventually become an issue either because of time or the inability to read the older media. And how many times can the data be copied without running the risk of possible corruption?

I wonder what affect solid state drives will have in this whole scheme? Will they be any better at holding data for the long term reliably?

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Jim,

I'll bet that one good, well-placed zap from static electricity could do in solid state media.

Then what?

Neil

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

Well, I'll bet that one good, even badly placed fire could ruin photos mighty fast.

The advantage of digital media is that you can duplicate it so you can store the files in different places like different hard drives, dvds and also online

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

PSD and especially TIF should be around for awhile -- but what medium
do you save them to?

Print. :)

[Buko]

their claimed life was "only" 30 years -- and that presupposed that you
still would have a drive to read 'em.

Another good reason to keep old gear around just in case you run across some old media.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Zeno,

Well, I'll bet that one good, even badly placed fire could ruin photos
mighty fast.

Of course. And it can wipe out digital media almost as quickly. What I'm more concerned about is that even best archiving practices for digital media are suspect. You can easily see damage to photographs, hopefully in time to stop or correct it. You can rarely directly observe damaged digital media, and may not know until there is no way to replace or restore it.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

And a meteor falling right on your head would wipe you off the face of the Earth.

Sheesh…!

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

I don't know about you guys but standard procedure for backing up valuable data is to save it in different locations to prevent fires and stuff like that from ruining it. Usually about 3 copies are made, one stored in the office, one at another physical location and a third on an offsite server

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Zeno,

I had assumed appropriate multiple backups. But that doesn't deal with the problems I've discussed: best formats and media.

Neil

[John Joslin]

I wonder why humanity has become so obsessed with preserving the past?

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Or some such nonsense.
Best formats for digital media i'd say would be high quality dvds as they are small and easily stored(there's also no risk of loosing data if it gets wet, dropped on the floor or others of that sort that plague HDDs). I've heard of manufacturers that claim that their dvds last for 100 years.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Zeno,

While I agree that high-quality DVD or CD media (but not RW) are probably the best we have in the consumer market for the moment, that still doesn't guarantee discs will last 100 years -- all we have are educated guesses from accelerated aging tests.

there's also no risk of loosing [sic] data if it gets wet, dropped on

the floor or others of that sort that plague HDDs). I've heard of manufacturers
that claim that their dvds last for 100 years.

Well, I wouldn't want to drop discs face down onto concrete or similar surfaces. Or have discs sitting in a puddle of water for any period of time.

Even if the discs containing vital data do last 100 years, will the TIF, PSD, or PDF file formats still be readable? 100 years ago, cylinder phonographs were popular. How many of us have a "reader" that can play back their content?

The point is, even with our 21st century technical superiority, both electronic files and the media upon which they reside offer no intrinsic guarantees that they will remain readable in 2109. Yet you can still pick up a 200-year-old book, letter or other document on rag or parchment and easily read it without any special tools.

Neil

[Zeno_...@adobeforums.com]

True, but just because you save to a dvd doesn't mean that you can't copy that data to a more recent storage type/file format after a couple of years. To each their own, i for one prefer digital data.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Zeno,

No disagreement -- even though we are being held captive by both the format and the medium.

On the other hand, I can still read old, original books in their old, original formats without need for some machine to read 'em. <g>

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

If it's not worth printing, the original image file is not worth preserving either. That's how I view my images.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramón,

Still, it's reassuring to still have a "good negative" in the drawer.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Of course, Neil. I have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of negatives of all formats from my father alone, as well as mine from the last six decades.
But if the negative is not worth printing, why keep it?

I'm sure I'll die before I scan any significant portion of what I have, and I've been scanning keepers and discarding rejects almost daily for over six years, several hours a day, except when traveling or when unable to function due to illness and infirmities.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramón,

Sounds like a good plan. For me, the total number of images to sort is probably under 10,000, and I've been spending much time attempting to identify people and places. This can be exasperating, with a lot of cross-referencing to other photos necessary, as these often were only identified vaguely: "Thanksgiving, 1947". It's easier when it comes to marking those worthy of long term archiving. I've done a number of test scans and prints at this point.

From a technical point, the biggest problem is optimizing often dense, contrasty, slightly soft, and sometimes grainy and curved black-and-white negatives. They're saved as uncompressed TIF or as PSD.

Neil

[Lundb...@adobeforums.com]

I've seen CD and DVD right out of the box, both prerecorded and blank with layer separation defects, and both that were bad with no visible defect.

I think a DVD left in an attic like grandma's Brownie prints wouldn't survive fifty years.