Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Advice on File formats

Author

Advice on File formats

Glenis

2007-02-13, 6:15 pm

Hi,
My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems
OK for my purposes).
When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes
of editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since:
a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a
couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
c: File sizes are not too large

Another thing I do with my photos is upload them to BonusPrint in order
to obtain prints. However, BonusPrint accept only JPG, BMP and TIFF
formats so I have to convert the PNGs to TIFFs in order to upload them.

My question is this:
Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to
PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?
Your suggestions please.

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-13, 10:14 pm

I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do
have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very
well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to
convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide
support, offers compression without image data loss and more.

ljc

"Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45d23f30$0$8718$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Hi,
> My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems OK
> for my purposes).
> When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes of
> editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since:
> a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
> b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a
> couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
> c: File sizes are not too large
>
> Another thing I do with my photos is upload them to BonusPrint in order to
> obtain prints. However, BonusPrint accept only JPG, BMP and TIFF formats
> so I have to convert the PNGs to TIFFs in order to upload them.
>
> My question is this:
> Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to
> PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?
> Your suggestions please.

Glenis

2007-02-13, 10:14 pm

Why PNG?
Well, it seems to display fine in browsers I use (IE7, Firefox2 and
Opera), it's lossless & file sizes are relatively small.
What alternative is there to PNG?
TIF isn't supported by browsers at all and file sizes are BIG.

My question regarding quality degradation in converting from JPG to PNG
is to do with my confusion on this 8-bit/16-bit option in PS
(Image-Mode). I'm a little unclear as to how an 8-bit image can have
more than 256 colors.
Perhaps you can point me at a good information source/book.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do
> have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very
> well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to
> convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide
> support, offers compression without image data loss and more.
>
> ljc
>
> "Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45d23f30$0$8718$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>

tacit

2007-02-13, 10:14 pm

In article <45d23f30$0$8718$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:

> Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to
> PNGs?

No. PNG, like TIFF, is lossless. You can change between lossless file
formats with no degradation at all.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit

2007-02-13, 10:14 pm

In article <45d24de4$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:

> My question regarding quality degradation in converting from JPG to PNG
> is to do with my confusion on this 8-bit/16-bit option in PS
> (Image-Mode). I'm a little unclear as to how an 8-bit image can have
> more than 256 colors.

You are confusing 8 bits per CHANNEL with eight bits per PIXEL.

Eight bits per CHANNEL means eight bits of red, eight bits of green, and
eight bits of blue, for a total of 24 bits per pixel and a total of 16
million colors.

Eight bits per PIXEL means each pixel is made of a total of eight bits,
for a total of 256 colors maximum.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Glenis

2007-02-14, 6:14 pm

Thanks.

tacit wrote:
> In article <45d24de4$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> You are confusing 8 bits per CHANNEL with eight bits per PIXEL.
>
> Eight bits per CHANNEL means eight bits of red, eight bits of green, and
> eight bits of blue, for a total of 24 bits per pixel and a total of 16
> million colors.
>
> Eight bits per PIXEL means each pixel is made of a total of eight bits,
> for a total of 256 colors maximum.
>

Owen Ransen

2007-02-14, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:

>My question is this:
>Am I reducing the quality of my photos by initially converting them to
>PNGs?. Should I save them as TIFFs?

PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
will not reduce your quality. See also:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Form...age-Formats.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Owen Ransen

2007-02-14, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:25:39 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>I doubt there is any loss in quality going from a PNG to TIF. However, I do
>have wonder why PNG. It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very
>well supported by most browsers. If I was going to choose a format to
>convert my images to from the cameras JPG's it would be TIF. Very wide
>support, offers compression without image data loss and more.

Which browsers support TIF?

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Glenis

2007-02-14, 10:14 pm

Yeah, thanks for that.
Being fairly new at this, I was just wondering if I had missed the obvious.
However, it seems to me that PNGs, being lossless and supported by the
main Browsers is a pretty good format with which to save images
(although I was a little surprised by the comment by
Little Juice Coupe
> It is pretty much a dead format and isn't even very
> well supported by most browsers.
If PNG is 'pretty much dead' then what's the alternative?
JPG is maybe ubiquitous but it's lossy and I don't like the sound of
lossy at all.
TIFF (as far as I can discover) is a pretty old format and I can see no
good reason for using it. OK, it's lossless but it produces BIG files,
is not compatible with Browsers and if one uses Photoshop then you may
as well stick to PSD for Layers etc.
But for archiving purposes I'm not too sure which format will be the best.

Owen Ransen wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> PNGs are lossless, as are most TIFF formats. So PNGs
> will not reduce your quality. See also:
>
> http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Form...age-Formats.htm
>
>
> Easy to use graphics effects:
> http://www.ransen.com/

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-14, 10:14 pm

Nothing was said about the web in the OP except as a side note and not as
the main reason he was converting his JPGs to PNG.

ljc

"Owen Ransen" <willy@wonker.com> wrote in message
news:d6q6t2164em841boi1dc2nm3ght33f18es@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:25:39 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which browsers support TIF?
>
>
> Easy to use graphics effects:
> http://www.ransen.com/

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-14, 10:14 pm

That is the problem. Microsoft did a great job of ensuring the PNG would
never be widely adopted and it isn't. Sure most programs will save it but
few browsers full support the format. The web has two major image formats
like it or not and those a JPG and GIF.

Your original post only mentioned the web as a side note. It seemed that you
were more interested in a format that wasn't lossy to store your digital
camera images as and that format is TIF. If you need to put them on the web
you are most likely going to have to resize them down anyways so PNG isn't
really a benefit.

There is also no guarantee that PNG will be supported in a few years. TIF
will be since Adobe owns and controls it.

ljc

"Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45d397ad$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...[color=darkred]
> Yeah, thanks for that.
> Being fairly new at this, I was just wondering if I had missed the
> obvious.
> However, it seems to me that PNGs, being lossless and supported by the
> main Browsers is a pretty good format with which to save images (although
> I was a little surprised by the comment by
> Little Juice Coupe
> If PNG is 'pretty much dead' then what's the alternative?
> JPG is maybe ubiquitous but it's lossy and I don't like the sound of lossy
> at all.
> TIFF (as far as I can discover) is a pretty old format and I can see no
> good reason for using it. OK, it's lossless but it produces BIG files, is
> not compatible with Browsers and if one uses Photoshop then you may as
> well stick to PSD for Layers etc.
> But for archiving purposes I'm not too sure which format will be the best.
>
>
>
>
>
> Owen Ransen wrote:

Glenis

2007-02-14, 10:14 pm

Well, Web compatibility was one of the reasons for my choosing PNG.
See:
> When I import them into PS I immediately save them as PNGs for purposes of editing/cropping etc. This seems an OK proposition since:
> a: Quality isn't degraded following multiple edits/save
> b. It's a format that's accepted for publishing to the Web (I have a couple of photo websites and a Flickr account)
> c: File sizes are not too large
The only PNG issues I've heard of re the Web is Transparency, which
doesn't bother me.
You suggest that TIFF will always be supported since Adobe owns/controls
it. Isn't that also the case with PSD? (smaller file sizes).
What about compressed TIFF (LZW)? Apart from file size, what is the
difference?

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> That is the problem. Microsoft did a great job of ensuring the PNG would
> never be widely adopted and it isn't. Sure most programs will save it but
> few browsers full support the format. The web has two major image formats
> like it or not and those a JPG and GIF.
>
> Your original post only mentioned the web as a side note. It seemed that you
> were more interested in a format that wasn't lossy to store your digital
> camera images as and that format is TIF. If you need to put them on the web
> you are most likely going to have to resize them down anyways so PNG isn't
> really a benefit.
>
> There is also no guarantee that PNG will be supported in a few years. TIF
> will be since Adobe owns and controls it.
>
> ljc
>
>
> "Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45d397ad$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-14, 10:14 pm

Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it,
but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are
developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on
the Adobe user forums).

The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said
Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch
format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images
in a nitch format.

The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to
play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't
support that well.

There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and
storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot
of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program)
don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers.
But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than
PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show
you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press
hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.

The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the
future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind
of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I
would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs
becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and
would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the
web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.

ljc

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it,
> but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are
> developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on
> the Adobe user forums).

Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that
Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of
TIFF, but TIFF itself?

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ <john@nowhere.net> wrote:

>Little Juice Coupe wrote:
>
>Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that
>Adobe is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of
>TIFF, but TIFF itself?

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webfor...hread=y#4210590
or
http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.
--
Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen
The Magazine of Folk and World Music
www.dirtylinen.com
Remove "SpamBeGone" to reply.

John McWilliams

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ <john@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webfor...hread=y#4210590
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/2k975t
>
> Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.

Good reference, although I'd not conclude that Adobe is waving people
off of PSD files. Made me think more of TIFFs though.

--
JOhn McWilliams

tacit

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

In article <er2q1q$ebl$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
"Aaron Sun" <asun3@gatech.edu> wrote:

> JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is
> the same as a lossless image...

False.

Absolutely false. Even at quality 12, there is still loss. This JPEG
setting absolutely IS NOT lossless, as saving an image in JPEG and the
same image in TIFF and then placing the two images over one another in
Difference mode will show.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Glenis

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

OK. Thanks.
I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but
not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional
photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.
BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still
supported pretty much universally.
The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so
either that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth.
But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> Well, Adobe is moving away from PSD. They don't plan to end support for it,
> but they do encourage people to move to TIF that is the format that they are
> developing more strongly now (this according to posts from Adobe personel on
> the Adobe user forums).
>
> The problem with PNG is far few programs support it than do. As I said
> Microsoft did a very good job of killing it. Right now it is only a nitch
> format and I don't know about anyone else I am not about to store my images
> in a nitch format.
>
> The other issue with PNG besides the transparency in browsers comes in to
> play with color management. PNG doesn't do it well and many programs don't
> support that well.
>
> There is a reason why most professionals use TIF for both printing and
> storage. As far as compression with TIF, I don't find it makes a whole lot
> of difference and not all programs (most old, shareware, freeware program)
> don't support it. Just like very few programs support TIF files with layers.
> But, flattened plain old TIF files are a much better archiving option than
> PNG. Show me a professional photographer that saves in PNG and I will show
> you a photographer that isn't professional. Show me a printer (pre-press
> hear) that accepts images in PNG and I will show you a not so hot printer.
>
> The fact remains you will be able to read TIF files for far longer in to the
> future than you will PNG. The only other format that I think has this kind
> of life potental is JPG. And, because of its lossy nature is not someting I
> would save my images to. I have no problem archiving my cameras JPGs as JPGs
> becaue if I need to work on them I will save them as TIF while I do so and
> would probably not ever take it back to JPG unless it was going back on the
> web. But, for archiving without ever resaving JPG is just fine.
>
> ljc
>
>

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

I have done a search on the Adobe forums and unfortunately they don't go
back far enough. This was early 2006 and it was Chris Cox that brought it
some one someone was talking about archiving their images in PSD because
they felt it was the more future proof format. It was then that Chris said
Adobe was moving away from PSD and doing more with TIF. However, he also
said that there are no plans to end PSD support in Adobe products (those
that do support it like Photoshop) anytime soon. The reasoning given was
that TIF can do everything PSD can, but it is much more extensible and
easier to keep backwards compatible (though not always like with layers in
TIF files).

ljc

"JJ" <john@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:12t90b74p3ietcb@news.supernews.com...
> Little Juice Coupe wrote:
>
> Can you give us URLs to those posts? I find it hard to believe that Adobe
> is moving to TIFF. DNG, perhaps, because it is an extension of TIFF, but
> TIFF itself?

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:

> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webfor...hread=y#4210590
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/2k975t

Help me out - who are the Adobe developers in those URLs.

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

Aaron Sun wrote:
> JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it is
> the same as a lossless image

Bullshit.

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

That covers some of it but the original post was early 2006 and by Chris
Cox. I just found an archive of posts that goes back to 3-06, still couldn't
find it. The Jeff Schewe posts covers some of it.

It certainly isn't anything I would worry about. But, I also wouldn't
archive my images in PSD format either. For work in progress not problem.
Long term I don't think so.

ljc

"Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen" <paul@dirtylinenSpamBeGone.com> wrote in message
news:11f9t2dnlripj5bpc9d5crg3j34qep63dt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:51:02 -0600, JJ <john@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webfor...hread=y#4210590
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/2k975t
>
> Haven't seen anything else on the topic, though.
> --
> Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen
> The Magazine of Folk and World Music
> www.dirtylinen.com
> Remove "SpamBeGone" to reply.

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-15, 10:14 pm

No it isn't. There is no setting you can use with JPG that doesn't cause
data loss. You may not see it until you do the 20th save or whatever, but
data is being lost.

ljc

"Aaron Sun" <asun3@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:er2q1q$ebl$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> JPG is fine for most purposes. If you set the quality to 12 (Maximum) it
> is the same as a lossless image, meaning no data is lost and your picture
> will be exactly how you left it.
>

John McWilliams

2007-02-16, 3:14 am

JJ wrote:
> Paul Hartman/Dirty Linen wrote:
>
>
> Help me out - who are the Adobe developers in those URLs.

Jeff Schewe is the main, perhaps only, one.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams

2007-02-16, 3:14 am

Glenis wrote:
> OK. Thanks.
> I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
> software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
> including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but
> not enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional
> photographer and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even
> locally.

TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in
terms of "archival" quality in images.

PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but
among the least "archival".

--
John McWilliams

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-16, 6:15 am

You don't have to be. Use what you like. At least you now have some more
information and I assume you can decide for yourself. That is what these
groups are all about, getting information so once can make the best choice
for themselves or to learn how to do something new.

ljc

"Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45d508c3$0$8735$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...[color=darkred]
> OK. Thanks.
> I'll look again at TIFFs although I'm not convinced away from PNGs. All
> software and OS's I've used in the last few years have supported them,
> including Windows and IE. Maybe there are color management issues but not
> enough that I've noticed. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer
> and am highly unlikely to print them pre-press or even locally.
> BMPs are far more ancient (who still uses them?)and yet they're still
> supported pretty much universally.
> The TIFF spec hasn't been updated since the early 90s I believe so either
> that makes it perfect or else it's getting long in the tooth.
> But JPG I'll always avoid where possible.
>
> Little Juice Coupe wrote:

Little Juice Coupe

2007-02-16, 6:15 am

It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is one
that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG
will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by
most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the
three that will make it that long if not longer. TIF and JPG are both over a
decade old, TIF I think older than that.

Will any of these be around in 100 years? Sure, in the Smithsonian in a
display of a mannequin holding a CD with a little sign under it saying
something like "100 years ago these small plastic discs (CDs) are what
people stored their images on. They used file formats like TIF, DNG, PSD and
JPG. While this CD contains images we currently have no way of accessing.
The specifications for these formats as well as the format for the CD have
long since been lost."

In other words they are going to look back and think we were cave people
with low sloped foreheads.

ljc

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l7udnYtCIqV4sEjYnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Glenis wrote:
>
> TIFFs would be a standard, as would RAW files, then perhaps PSDs, in terms
> of "archival" quality in images.
>
> PNGs just never made it bit time. JPEGs are the most ubiquitous, but among
> the least "archival".
>
> --
> John McWilliams

Glenis

2007-02-16, 6:14 pm

Yes, the comments from this group have given me food for thought and
encouraged more research. As a result, I'm now leaning in the direction
of TIFFs.
The only other consideration is that if I convert all of my pictures
from PNG to TIF I will need at least twice as much storage space. So,
it'll be time for another hard drive.
Thanks for everyone's comments.

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> You don't have to be. Use what you like. At least you now have some more
> information and I assume you can decide for yourself. That is what these
> groups are all about, getting information so once can make the best choice
> for themselves or to learn how to do something new.
>
> ljc
>
>
> "Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45d508c3$0$8735$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>

Barry Pearson

2007-02-16, 6:14 pm

On Feb 16, 10:25 am, "Little Juice Coupe" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is one
> that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG
> will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by
> most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the
> three that will make it that long if not longer. TIF and JPG are both over a
> decade old, TIF I think older than that.
>
> Will any of these be around in 100 years? Sure, in the Smithsonian in a
> display of a mannequin holding a CD with a little sign under it saying
> something like "100 years ago these small plastic discs (CDs) are what
> people stored their images on. They used file formats like TIF, DNG, PSD and
> JPG. While this CD contains images we currently have no way of accessing.
> The specifications for these formats as well as the format for the CD have
> long since been lost."
[snip]

If the Smithsonian can preserve a CD, they can surely preserve a
specification of a format!

Once a format becomes identified as an archival format, and used by
professional archivists and librarians, it is very likely to survive.
Those people know the importance of active management of their
collections - that is how we still have archives of negatives and
photographs from so many decades ago.

ISO 19005-1 is "Document management - Electronic document file format
for long-term preservation". Isn't that likely to gain a LOT of
attention from archivists and librarians worldwide? Won't that ensure
that lots of specifications are preserved in that format, and the
means to read those specifications will be ensured?

Is ISO 19005-1 likely to be supported? In fact, it is also known as
PDF/A. It is, in effect, a subset of PDF. I don't know whether
existing PDF-versions of these file formats can be read by a PDF/A
reader, but if not I'm sure conforming versions will be written.

(Will it be possible to run C-code in 100 years time? I suspect it
will. And there is plenty of C-code that supports the above file
formats).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Tony Cooper

2007-02-16, 6:14 pm

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:21:52 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:

>Yes, the comments from this group have given me food for thought and
>encouraged more research. As a result, I'm now leaning in the direction
>of TIFFs.
>The only other consideration is that if I convert all of my pictures
>from PNG to TIF I will need at least twice as much storage space. So,
>it'll be time for another hard drive.

At least you will be doing so at a time when external storage devices
are wonderfully cheap. You can find deals for external hard drives
that hold over 300 gigs that sell for under $100.

--

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Owen Ransen

2007-02-16, 6:14 pm

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:

>My digital camera delivers JPGs (OK, it's not a fancy camera but seems
>OK for my purposes).

If your photos are important to you, and you want your grandchildren
to be able to see them you should really really print them:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Imag...ion/Default.htm

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Glenis

2007-02-16, 6:14 pm

Well, I do have a few printed using online photo processing services
such as Jessops, Bonusprint and Trueprint.
However, since I have about 3000 photos it's not feasible to print them all.
I can only assume, perhaps dangerously, that by the time my
Grandchildren are interested in looking at photos of their ancestors,
things will have moved on somewhat.
I have numerous photos of my ancestors that I've scanned and restored.
When those photos were taken, some almost 90 years ago, no-one would
have imagined the technology we have available today to digitally
resurrect them. Similarly, we cannot imagine the technologies that will
be available in 90 years time to recover pictures from duff CDs/DVDs/HDs.
It's interesting that many people, most likely the majority, have only a
passing interest in their ancestors. I spend many hours doing
photography and restoration because it's an interest of mine, but having
laboriously restored old photos of our grandparents and later shown them
to the rest of the family, their response is: "Oh yeah". It's merely a
passing interest and no big part of their lives.
Before we had digital cameras I compiled loads of photo albums (I've got
a cupboard full of 'em) but how often did anyone look at them? Very
rarely, if at all!
So I'm not too worried.
If, in the future, a descendant of mine is sufficiently interested in
their descendants images then it's possible that, by then, the means
will exist to extract the data from the pile of backup CDs/DVDs that I have.

Owen Ransen wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:44:01 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> If your photos are important to you, and you want your grandchildren
> to be able to see them you should really really print them:
>
> http://www.ransen.com/Articles/Imag...ion/Default.htm
>
>
> Easy to use graphics effects:
> http://www.ransen.com/

Hunt

2007-02-17, 3:14 am

In article <b8kbt29j8jcfef6f0ce256u4ccbmobngre@4ax.com>,
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net says...
>
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:21:52 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>At least you will be doing so at a time when external storage devices
>are wonderfully cheap. You can find deals for external hard drives
>that hold over 300 gigs that sell for under $100.
>
>
>--
>
>
>Tony Cooper
>Orlando, FL

Yes, Fry's Electronics just advertised an ATA-100 300GB (do not recall the RPM
or mfgr.) for US$69. For US$700 you could get a 2TB 10/100/1000 RAID 0 or 5
storage array.

Hunt

Hunt

John McWilliams

2007-02-17, 3:14 am

Little Juice Coupe wrote:

>
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message

> It depends on what you mean by archival. For me an archival format is
one
> that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years one can still use. I don't think PNG
> will make it that long, it is already on the verge of being forgotten by
> most computer users. TIF, DNG and JPG I think right now at least are the
> three that will make it that long if not longer.

I should have said DNG, perhaps, instead of RAW, but both those, and
TIFF and PSD meet my definition of an archival format in that they are
recognized and widely supported and are lossless HQ formats. JPEG fails
the last one.

I'm not concerned that my gramophone records aren't supported by current
hardware. I can get them made into .aiff files any old time.

> In other words they are going to look back and think we were cave people
> with low sloped foreheads.

Uh, some of us are.

--
john mcwilliams

Owen Ransen

2007-02-17, 3:14 am

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:42:24 +0000, Glenis <gh@here.co.uk> wrote:

>Before we had digital cameras I compiled loads of photo albums (I've got
>a cupboard full of 'em) but how often did anyone look at them? Very
>rarely, if at all!

I and my friends look at my old albums all the time:

"Look how fat you have got!"

"Look how thin you were!"

"What a fresh face you had!"

"He'd dead now."

"She married that idiot...what was his name...?"

I find photos of landscapes or people I don't know are boring,
its photos of people I know which I go back to every year or
so...

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

ST.D.AL

2007-02-17, 6:15 pm

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:22:25 -0800, Little Juice Coupe in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>That is the problem. Microsoft did a great job of ensuring the PNG would
>never be widely adopted and it isn't. Sure most programs will save it but
>few browsers full support the format. The web has two major image formats
>like it or not and those a JPG and GIF.

Actually this is incorrect. The latest MSFT browser, AKA IE 7 supports
PNG transparency, which previously IE 6 didn't, unless one used a hack.
PNGs without transparency have been supported by all the main browsers
since at least y2k.

>Your original post only mentioned the web as a side note. It seemed that you
>were more interested in a format that wasn't lossy to store your digital
>camera images as and that format is TIF. If you need to put them on the web
>you are most likely going to have to resize them down anyways so PNG isn't
>really a benefit.

It's called "Portable Network Graphic" for a reason, and offers one what
tif does, but as a good online format. All new browsers support PNGs
completely. The only browser I know that supports tif format is Apple
Safarai and maybe by extension, Kongi on Linux, since that's were Apple
pulled the code for Safari's web kit.

>There is also no guarantee that PNG will be supported in a few years. TIF
>will be since Adobe owns and controls it.

Poppycock -- PNG is an open format and will supported well into the
future.

[color=darkred]
>"Glenis" <gh@here.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:45d397ad$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

Daniel Minge

2007-02-24, 3:14 am

Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?

Minge

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:34:34 -0500, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <er2q1q$ebl$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
> "Aaron Sun" <asun3@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>False.
>
>Absolutely false. Even at quality 12, there is still loss. This JPEG
>setting absolutely IS NOT lossless, as saving an image in JPEG and the
>same image in TIFF and then placing the two images over one another in
>Difference mode will show.

Owen Ransen

2007-02-24, 3:14 am

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:15:30 GMT, Daniel Minge <minge@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?
>
>Minge

I lost some JPGs on a CDROM because I left it
on a park bench. Came back an hour later gone!
Lost! JPGs are NOT lossless.

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

tacit

2007-02-25, 6:14 pm

In article <cepvt2tds251oha0dorlo3oedktc5tlc7a@4ax.com>,
Daniel Minge <minge@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Even JPG's saved to a CD-Rom?
>
> Minge

The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to
which it is saved.

--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Owen Ransen

2007-02-26, 6:14 pm

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <cepvt2tds251oha0dorlo3oedktc5tlc7a@4ax.com>,
> Daniel Minge <minge@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to
>which it is saved.

I was not sure of the posters intention...does he really think
that JPGs are lossless because the file doesn't lose any bits
because it is on a sturdy CDROM support....

His name does not instill confidence in his intentions.

Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

Charlie Choc

2007-02-26, 6:14 pm

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <cepvt2tds251oha0dorlo3oedktc5tlc7a@4ax.com>,
> Daniel Minge <minge@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>The JPEG file format uses lossy compression regardless of the media to
>which it is saved.

There actually is an ISO lossless JPEG specification but few if any applications
use it, certainly not Photoshop.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Rob

2007-02-27, 3:15 am

Charlie Choc wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:24:11 -0500, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> There actually is an ISO lossless JPEG specification but few if any applications
> use it, certainly not Photoshop.

Yep better read this

http://www.hpl.hp.com/loco/

Daniel Minge

2007-03-01, 10:14 pm

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:59:31 +1100, Rob <mesa@mine.com> wrote:

>Charlie Choc wrote:
>
>
>Yep better read this
>
>http://www.hpl.hp.com/loco/

Yes. Lossy compression in JPG images no doubt
accounts for the fact that not many people
use this format. :-)