Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
adamhanlon

Wetpixel Live: Workflow for Underwater Photographers

Recommended Posts

Tiff is defined as lossless and JPEG is not .  It used to be said that opening and re-saving a jpeg causes the quality to deteriorate - though now it seems many say it doesn't if max quality is used.  But if you open the file and re-edit it a number of times you risk issues surfacing.

I save mine as layered tiffs in 8 bit uncropped so I can change edits in the future losslessly - you can use LZW compression and remain lossless.  LZW however doesn't make the file smaller in 16 bit.  Some would argue saving as 16 bit is better - but my view is you only need the 16 bits when stretching the image during editing.  You can always re-open the file and paste in a newly processed RAW layer of the image .  I keep both the raw and tif files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiff files are huge
20 megapixels is 121 megabytes
For storage purposes it doesn't offer any saving compared to a raw and editing metadata however lots of programs only work on tiff
So you could have 24 mb raw 128 Mb tiff for one image which is a lot plus a sidecar but with current storage costs having pre made jpeg is just to speed up the process in case you are Alex Mustard who publishes a lot otherwise just keep your files after deleting the shots that are worthless


Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you used a pixel editing program (like Photoshop) you cannot save any edits made within it to a RAW file. It will have to saved as a TIFF, PSD, jpg or similar.

If it is likely that you will be returning and editing the image again, saving as a TIFF file makes sense, as this allows you to do so without quality loss. If you don't think that you will ever edit the image again, high res jpg is probably sufficient.

A few print publications still want images supplied as TIFFs, so again, if the images are likely to be used for print, it makes sense to save them as TIFFs.

Storage is cheap...time is less so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slightly different view:

I very rarely keep my pics as TIFF usually (actually, always) as RAW.

Over the years, and as editing software has developed and become more and more sophisticated, I've found that you can go back to old pics in the RAW format, re-edit them and pull more out of them than you managed with the original file.

With that method I'm not sure having a TIFF - unless it is a layered one and you are a whizz with PS -  is so helpful. And TIFF take up TONS of storage space compared to RAWs.

Bit the same with JPGs which I've always seen as less handy for long-term storage for all the reasons outlined above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep my layered tiffs as 8 bit files a bare 20MP image is 42MB and a layered tiff around 100MB - I'm not a huge shooter so my main image folder with processed images is 300GB with 5000 files, plus a number of smaller folders adding up to at least that much again.   My underwater raw file folder is 400GB and has many more files - including sidecars and files generated by my image processing programs.  For me quite manageable - for others with much bigger libraries it could present real challenges.  I could see it being viable to convert your selects to Tif and leave everything else as Raw.

The premise of lightroom of course is to store Raw files and a catalogue with all your processing steps effectively stored there.  Capture One does something similar and you only produce a tiff or jpeg when you specifically export it.  In theory it should be the most economical way in terms of file sizes to store your images.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 10:20 AM, Interceptor121 said:

I have come across Adobe Bridge that is much faster than lightroom at handling previews then I have my RAW Editing in DxO PhotoLab and finally if and when required and never done it so far for underwater images Photoshop

I am also using Bridge to manage photos, keywords tagging, preview, sorting, ... I do most of the processing in Camera Raw, and only edit a few "keeper" photos in Photoshop.  

So far CameraRaw is the best Raw processing software that I have found to correct white balance of underwater pictures, especially ambient light pictures. Using Bridge, the development settings can be easily applied to other pictures, which makes the workflow quite efficient. Similar workflow can be achieved with Lightroom (same Raw processing engine) but it's a bit slower, and less efficient due to the size of the library.

Photos edited in Photoshop are saved in PSD, in case I want to edit them again in the short term. I agree also with the previous comment that when I want to edit again a photo that I processed more than 4-5 years ago, it is best to start again from the RAW file. Improvement in processing software (and my editing experience) really make it worthwhile. So I don't see any benefit saving into another lossless format such as TIFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Algwyn said:

I am also using Bridge to manage photos, keywords tagging, preview, sorting, ... I do most of the processing in Camera Raw, and only edit a few "keeper" photos in Photoshop.  

So far CameraRaw is the best Raw processing software that I have found to correct white balance of underwater pictures, especially ambient light pictures. Using Bridge, the development settings can be easily applied to other pictures, which makes the workflow quite efficient. Similar workflow can be achieved with Lightroom (same Raw processing engine) but it's a bit slower, and less efficient due to the size of the library.

Photos edited in Photoshop are saved in PSD, in case I want to edit them again in the short term. I agree also with the previous comment that when I want to edit again a photo that I processed more than 4-5 years ago, it is best to start again from the RAW file. Improvement in processing software (and my editing experience) really make it worthwhile. So I don't see any benefit saving into another lossless format such as TIFF.

I think the apparent improvement in camera raw are more adobe getting up to speed with new software routines as they were lagging massively behind. Having said that I do not see any major gap with camera raw to lightroom except local adjustments but those are better in photoshop anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should perhaps of pointed out that I retain the RAW files. My main image library consists of RAW files. 

However, once you edit in Photoshop, you cannot save these changes to (camera native) RAW format. It has to be saved in another format. Given that it is possible that time and effort has been expended on these files, I do not want to lose the edits...

My folder of TIFFs is just of selected images that I have worked on and think may be used for print purposes. 

PSD is a good format if you plan to solely work in Photoshop. It will still need exporting into TIFF (or high res jpeg) for print purposes. 

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...