This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > September 2006 > What is the best file type?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
What is the best file type?
|
|
| Robert 2006-09-08, 6:17 pm |
| What is the best file type? It depends on what you want to do.
I don't know what the limitations and advantages of the different types are.
I understand a little. I just recently switched to CS2. I am now into
using only Adobe's programs for max compatibility. I am evaluating my work
flow. And plan on making some changes. Some of below I know is true, some is
obsolete, some I think is, and some is true with particular settings.
Below is a list of what I consider the major file formats worth using.
JPG
lots of different settings and flavors. The big advantage is file size. It
has a loss compression. What this means is each time you save the file, it
looses a little. I assume that this dose not matter on saves within the
editing session.( edit, save, edit, save, edit, close) I assume the only
loss is happening on the last save, or close. How much loss, or errors
introduced by the file format is dependent on the compression settings.
Layers and masking is not an option. I think the file is limited to 24bit
RGB. Web compatible.
PSD
No compression, a lot of editing function capable, such as layers, and
masks. Not as compatible with others. Some editing packages can only open
particular versions of this. For example if you created a PSD in PS CS2
someone else using Corel 11 could not open it. Capable of many different
modes. At its extreme it is capable of 96bit RGB. Not directly web
compatible
RAW
Very proprietary, for cameras. Most information from the camera. Very large
file size. Must be adjusted to be used. IE white balance, and sharpening are
needed. Not directly web compatible
Tiff
Great compatibility, I think it is compatible with layers.
Gif
Small, lossy, web compatible masks. Limited to 255 colors.
It is my opinion how best to use the above formats is:
Shoot JPG most of the time, for files that I don't want to require the time
to adjust.
For photos I want the best possible quality, use Raw. Then save as PSD
keeping the un-flattened edits.
Save the edited JPGs as PSD or back as JPG depending on quality and future
of the image.
I had not looked into digital negative format. I have not seen TGA formats
in a while, and don't know what is wrong or right with it. There are a lot
of formats, available.
I look forward to seeing the comments, and recommendations.
| |
| Hebee Jeebes 2006-09-08, 6:17 pm |
| It does depend on what you want to do. JPG is great for the web for photos.
However for archiving it sucks since it is lossy. PSD Adobe wants to move
people away from (at least that is what some of the Adobe people have said
in the Adobe Forums). They recommend TIFF, it supports everything PSD does
but has better compression. I use .TIFF for archiving. I convert all JPG's
from my camera to compressed TIFFs (zip compression, it should be an option
in whatever program you use to save TIFFs). Jpg's I only use for the web. I
will leave some images as PSD if it has layers and the like. While TIFF will
save with layers few programs support that flavor of TIFF. Photoshop does
but others choke on it, at least for right now. So for layered images and
images with layer masks, alpha channels, layer effects, adjustment layers,
etc. that I don't want to flatten I save as PSD.
R
"Robert" <junk@oneilldesign.com> wrote in message
news:edmtge$ae6@dispatch.concentric.net...
> What is the best file type? It depends on what you want to do.
>
> I don't know what the limitations and advantages of the different types
> are. I understand a little. I just recently switched to CS2. I am now
> into using only Adobe's programs for max compatibility. I am evaluating
> my work flow. And plan on making some changes. Some of below I know is
> true, some is obsolete, some I think is, and some is true with particular
> settings. Below is a list of what I consider the major file formats worth
> using.
>
>
>
> JPG
>
> lots of different settings and flavors. The big advantage is file size.
> It has a loss compression. What this means is each time you save the
> file, it looses a little. I assume that this dose not matter on saves
> within the editing session.( edit, save, edit, save, edit, close) I assume
> the only loss is happening on the last save, or close. How much loss, or
> errors introduced by the file format is dependent on the compression
> settings. Layers and masking is not an option. I think the file is
> limited to 24bit RGB. Web compatible.
>
>
>
> PSD
>
> No compression, a lot of editing function capable, such as layers, and
> masks. Not as compatible with others. Some editing packages can only
> open particular versions of this. For example if you created a PSD in PS
> CS2 someone else using Corel 11 could not open it. Capable of many
> different modes. At its extreme it is capable of 96bit RGB. Not directly
> web compatible
>
>
>
> RAW
>
> Very proprietary, for cameras. Most information from the camera. Very
> large file size. Must be adjusted to be used. IE white balance, and
> sharpening are needed. Not directly web compatible
>
>
>
> Tiff
>
> Great compatibility, I think it is compatible with layers.
>
>
>
> Gif
>
> Small, lossy, web compatible masks. Limited to 255 colors.
>
>
>
> It is my opinion how best to use the above formats is:
>
> Shoot JPG most of the time, for files that I don't want to require the
> time to adjust.
>
> For photos I want the best possible quality, use Raw. Then save as PSD
> keeping the un-flattened edits.
>
> Save the edited JPGs as PSD or back as JPG depending on quality and future
> of the image.
>
>
>
> I had not looked into digital negative format. I have not seen TGA
> formats in a while, and don't know what is wrong or right with it. There
> are a lot of formats, available.
>
>
>
> I look forward to seeing the comments, and recommendations.
>
>
| |
|
|
| tacit 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| In article <edmtge$ae6@dispatch.concentric.net>,
"Robert" <junk@oneilldesign.com> wrote:
> PSD
>
> No compression, ...
Incorrect. PSD uses lossless compression.
> Gif
>
> Small, lossy,...
Technically, GIF is lossless; it uses lossless LZW compression. It works
only with 256 colors; it is the reduction in the number of colors, not
the saving as GIF per se, that causes loss. If you have a picture that
is already 256 colors or fewer, GIF is lossless.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| Robert 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| I am using PS-cs2 and I didn't see the option for compression using PSD
format. Maybe the fact that I cary a white cane has something to do with
it. It appears that the compression is very little. I should do a
comparison, not just the general impression. The image content dramaticly
affects file size, with compression. I will do that this weekend, and post.
I thougth this topic would generate a lot of oppionions. It is hard to read
the specs on a file type and see how well it is accepted. what the
advantages and disadvantages in the real world.
It would be good to see a list of what different people are using. Then it
would be great if they included a small paragraph what is good and bad. The
last time I looked into file types was 15 years ago. It may have changed.
The major issues are still the same: Compatiblity (what programs can use
it), Capability (layers, transparentcy, vector, color modes...), and
Compression (loss, file size). I am sure everybody can learn something.
New people can point out the new specs. Old people can show the benifits of
real world experiance. Everybody wins.
The specs on DGD look good. I need to try that out for where in the
workflow it should, and where it shouldn't.
Robert
"tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tacitr-77147D.07412008092006@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <edmtge$ae6@dispatch.concentric.net>,
> "Robert" <junk@oneilldesign.com> wrote:
>
>
> Incorrect. PSD uses lossless compression.
>
>
> Technically, GIF is lossless; it uses lossless LZW compression. It works
> only with 256 colors; it is the reduction in the number of colors, not
> the saving as GIF per se, that causes loss. If you have a picture that
> is already 256 colors or fewer, GIF is lossless.
>
> --
> Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
> all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
> Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| Toke Eskildsen 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| Robert wrote:
> The last time I looked into file types was 15 years ago.
> It may have changed.
One reason for the missing debate might be that the world has converged
to a smaller number of formats for bitmaps. One grouping of formats
might be
- Camera RAW
Two obvious choices: The proprietary RAW from the camera and DNG.
- Working format / high quality
More choices, the obvious ones being whatever proprietary format one's
program uses, TIFF and PNG.
- Presentation / low filesize
JPEG or PNG, depending on the image. If it weren't for animated images,
GIF should be long gone, replaced by PNG.
It mostly boild down to choosing between proprietary semi-closed
formats or more open formats (RAW/PSD vs. DNG/TIFF, PNG). Personally I
lean towards the open ones, but I also tend to think of preservation in
terms of decades.
My biggest gripe with TIFF is that it's a container format, capable of
holding almost everything. At work, I encountered a series of TIFFs
which were three layered, with the middle layer being compressed by
some semi-standardized sort of JPEG, which were officially unadvised 10
years ago (IrfanView could handle it, so the data was restored).
PNG is simpler in that aspect. Is has some shortcomings, mainly that it
can only hold one layer and that it only supports RGB, but the format
is fixed, so it is possible (and easy, as the code is freely available)
for at program to have full support for every possible PNG 1.0 image.
The same goes for JFIF JPEG. I don't know about DNG.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
| |
| tacit 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| In article <edrv9e$bmd@dispatch.concentric.net>,
"Robert" <junk@oneilldesign.com> wrote:
> I am using PS-cs2 and I didn't see the option for compression using PSD
> format. Maybe the fact that I cary a white cane has something to do with
> it. It appears that the compression is very little. I should do a
> comparison, not just the general impression. The image content dramaticly
> affects file size, with compression. I will do that this weekend, and post.
There's no option for compression on a PSD file; it's always compressed.
However, it uses a fast but simple compression algorithm that doesn't
offer very much savings to complex photographic images that have a lot
of detail. It works best on large areas of the same color, so it excels
on masks and the like.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| decline 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| Thank you for a great explanation. It is something I can use, its concise,
and it makes sense.
That type of compression would work well for layers of adjustments, and
masks, but not much for images.
If I am wanting to place a file in illustrator, and eventually take it to a
print house. Should I keep it in PSD or flatten and take it to TIF? I
assume I should avoid keeping many versions of the same file. file size
alone will eat me alive. It is not the obvious disk space problem. It is
finding the file needed. If you multiply all the useful photos by 3
different file types, then try to find a particular image, it makes a lot
more work. This can be improved with good file management and folder
structure. Not to mention what version should I use. It dose provide some
fall back options for corrupted files. The basic workflow with regards to
file type is something like:
Shoot in RAW (for any planed quality images, JPG for concept and low
quality) My Nikon D200 dose not support DGN
Maybe convert to DGN and discard the RAW?
Sort photos into "keep", "maybe", and "trash". Backup the "keep" and "maybe"
Edit and save the file in PSD
Should it be used directly as a PSD. Flattened for max compatibility? Left
layered for max editable? Converted to TIF or EPS?
The way I normally work I try to put together some basic concepts as quick
as possible, from start to finish. Then go back and polish the parts that
need it as time allows. Allowing me to correct only the images used as a
set. What this means is I don't like flattening the images.
When done with a project I would like to go back and clean up the old
versions and unused files. But this rarely happens in reality. It is always
on to the next project ASAP. Then coming back to the mess is not fun. I
think I need to keep the RAW or DNG, to same the photo shoot for other uses.
The PSD to edit. then the final used format (assuming that step is needed).
I am tying to define what the best workflow is without realizing at the end,
should-a, would-a, could-a.
Robert
"tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tacitr-07ED8B.10063509092006@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <edrv9e$bmd@dispatch.concentric.net>,
> "Robert" <junk@oneilldesign.com> wrote:
>
>
> There's no option for compression on a PSD file; it's always compressed.
> However, it uses a fast but simple compression algorithm that doesn't
> offer very much savings to complex photographic images that have a lot
> of detail. It works best on large areas of the same color, so it excels
> on masks and the like.
>
> --
> Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
> all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
> Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| tacit 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| In article <9pOdnZ4XPJ6PjJnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@adelphia.com>,
"decline" <none@aol.com> wrote:
> If I am wanting to place a file in illustrator, and eventually take it to a
> print house. Should I keep it in PSD or flatten and take it to TIF?
Depends on what your print shop wants, and what version of Illustrator
you use, and how good you are with dealing with transparency.
Modern versions of Illustrator offer full support for transparency and
offer support for Photoshop .psd files, but in the hands of the wrong
person, ,this can produce undesirable results in print. A good print
shop can print an Illustrator file with transparency on press and get
exactly what you want; a poor print shop, or a prepress person who does
not understand how to flatten transparency on output, will not.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
| |
| Robert 2006-09-12, 10:17 pm |
| If I am not talking about a particular project, that would have a particular
print house, is it a bad idea to use PSD files for the standard? It might
work fine in house where it is all adobe cs2 but when it goes out I need to
make sure the printer can handle transparency of PSD.
Dose the advantages of all the other functionality of PSD outweigh the
potential problem?
I am trying to define a reasonable workflow of file types. Without going
through the full process a few times with different printers, it is hard
trying to find where the should-a point is going to be. It is so good to
get the recommendations from real world users.
Robert
"tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tacitr-32D4AF.07302511092006@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <9pOdnZ4XPJ6PjJnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "decline" <none@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Depends on what your print shop wants, and what version of Illustrator
> you use, and how good you are with dealing with transparency.
>
> Modern versions of Illustrator offer full support for transparency and
> offer support for Photoshop .psd files, but in the hands of the wrong
> person, ,this can produce undesirable results in print. A good print
> shop can print an Illustrator file with transparency on press and get
> exactly what you want; a poor print shop, or a prepress person who does
> not understand how to flatten transparency on output, will not.
>
> --
> Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
> all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
> Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|