which is the best file format for editing?

Wookie

Wookie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
764
Name
Lawrence
Edit My Images
Yes
apologies if its obvious to everybody else

What file format should I be using for editing?

I get the files off the 400D in Raw, do a basic fiddle with them in Digital Photo Professional (brightness levels, crop colour curves, basic sharpen if its basically sound), still in raw, then to play further (fancy sharpening or touch ups)with layers & stuff in Gimp or paint.net I currently convert to jpeg 100% quality.

Gimp recently said I couldnt save my work in jpeg, something I was doing with layers upset it.
I am also worried that jpeg is lossy and could be degrading my image, I'm still very new to editing so I am saving lots of versions along the steps of processing as I try different methods.

Should I be using something other than jpg as my file format? :thinking:

ta
 
once i have finished editing i flatten all the layers for saving.. or it will be a HUGE file.

I save a tiff copy as it is lossless but I know many save theirs a big jpgs.
 
You can't save a jpg with layers intact, which is probably why your getting the error message.

Personally I save the original RAW, A high res TIFF and a low res jpg of any shot's I'm happy with. If I want to send a shot off to Photobox for printing I will just open the TIFF and save as a JPG with maximum quality.
 
I save mine: the original RAW gets saved, just in case I lose everything else. Then it's converted as a PSD with all layers intact, then saved as a JPG for web.

That way you've got the original file, as shot. The edited version with layers intact, and a file suitable for the web.
 
Yep, pretty much the same as mattyh, but I haven't fully versed myself with PS, so use PSP instead. I tend to save a full size JPG to a separate drive too, as the second last step before downsizing for web.
 
I save the Raw file, I edit as a Tiff. Save as a high quality jpeg and back the whole lot up to a server.
 
Thanks I've just about got the file flow and storage formats sussed now, what I am using for simple shots with minimal processing (levels, crop, basic sharpen, all done in DPP) is:

1. I save all RAW off the camera to a hard drive "Originals" archive, with backup to CD / DVD

2. I then put a copy of all the RAW files in my "WIP" directory (Work In Progress), I dump the bad ones (after half a dozen sifts) and process the reasonable through the basic levels curves crop & sharpen on DPP

3. the final results go in the "Finished" archive (backup to cd/dvd), as
- RAW (with editing info),
- a small jpeg for websites & email
- a large jpeg for posterity (and any further publishing, printing or compilation cd/dvd)​

However if the shot is a special and needs fancy work in Gimp
between steps 2 & 3 it sounds like jpeg is the wrong format to be using.
DPP has these output options other than jpeg, which one should I use:

exif-TIFF 8-bit or TIFF 16 bit

? ? ? ?​

or should I work harder at finding a way to load RAW into Gimp?
 
If you are not using photoshop, then tiff is probably the best way of saving edits. Always use 16bit. I normally keep all the layer information, if they contain edits for colour (but I flattern all the fine pixel edits for skin or dust).

When working in photoshop I will sometimes use PSD, or DNG. The only time I ever use jpeg is when I output a small res file from lightroom for upload to web.
 
OK, I'll try 16 bit TIFFs

while I'm staring at the save screen 2 other features I dont really understand:

output resolution : 350 dpi - should I change from the default 350?
embed ICC profile in image - should I select it?
 
oh well, gimp spits out 16-bit and converts it to 8-bit :lol:

so thats settled

thanks to all
 
How you process them depends on what you want to do with them

Shooting raw is fine and great for any dodgy exposures, but I've done A3 tests of raw v jpeg and there's sod all difference, if any, at that size where the original image is well exposed. I always process as 8 bit jpegs as - the printers can't print 16 bit! Also, they can't print the wider gamut of Adobe 98 either, so I shoot in the studio as jpegs to start with in sRGB - this minimises processing and as I sell 40x30" canvases where everyone goes 'WOW' at the detail... well draw your own conclusions there

However, I also shoot landscapes - where I shoot in raw, process the decent ones as 16 bit tiffs and shoot in Adobe 98

So as I said, depends what you want to do with them
 
Wookie

Leave the DPI as it is it dosen't affect the file size, it's just when it's opened on a page that it states the image dimensions at that notional resolution. 350 dpi is a little odd, most applications opt for 300. You may want to change that if you are submitting images for publications as magazines, (if the specify anything at all) will usually ask for 300 dpi.

If you work flow is colour managed then you should embed the profile. It's probably sRGB anyway. If not it may not make any difference. Save 2 identical images one with and one without see what difference it makes.
 
I make up a folder then import the images into the folder threw lightroom as DNGs. If I need to edit in photoshop I will save as a TIFF and open in photoshop. I only save as JPEG when saving onto the web or when getting sent to print. Depends how much space you have? the way I have said is the best way for the best image quality but at 45mb files a pop its alot of space. 300 DPI is big enought as no printers print at a higher figure.
 
is file size really an issue now with hard drives around 500gb and getting cheaper all the time. around £60.
I'm sure i read somewhere that hard drive sizes are estimated to double every 2 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top