PSD vs JPEG for archive

I usually shoot a relatively small number of frames for projects, or at least after approval a limited number of images get developed into final pictures.

For this reason I've never had to worry too much about file sizes and the headroom they carry.

However, I'm now shooting an increasing number of projects - such as music gigs, where I am producing a larger number of frames.

Many of these images may never truly see the light of day as they are shot "on-spec" with the hope of future sales, a bit like creating a personal library.

The question arises as to whether I should store as PSDs or full res JPEGs.

I may wish to re-visit the images at a later date and do fuller retouching work if they are to be printed or if sales are to be made, (prints, publications etc,) and so I need to be careful to maintain the quality.

I did some tests and to be honest there is virtually no difference between a 1st and 5th generation JPEG and the original PSD. Even when viewed at 300% I'll be if I can tell much difference - except perhaps a tiny variance at pixel level but even then I've got to look very hard.

I saved JPEGs at max quality, 16 bit and I work in sRGB, (because I know I can reliably monitor the colours.)

Of course I can save everything to PSD and convert at a later date but I'd be interested to hear others' workflows and experiences in archiving - particularly when revisiting images later on for re-touching.

I know there are some well known photographers who archive only in JPEG but I'm always cautious when throwing away information, (although I can't tell what I'm throwing away with 5th generation standing up so well...!)

I guess I'm also thinking more about this because now with 21MP to record, my file sizes have just doubled.

True, storage is cheap and hard drives are inexpensive, but I'm using Drobos nowadays which whilst wonderfully reliable, are not quite so inexpensive, quiet or small - and I'd prefer not to have a shelf full of the things, wirring away in the background...

LEE C.

There really isn't any question for me. PSD allows me to save the files in 16 bit and with all of the layers intact so that I can revisit my edits if necessary. If you don't see the difference with JPG versus PSD, it might not matter for you. You mentioned you save the JPG in 16 bit but the JPG format does not actually allow for saving in anything other than 8 bit. Further, by saving in sRGB, there is a good chance that you are clipping your colors because it is small color space relative to Adobe RGB or ProPhoto. Again, it all comes down to your own preference but for my work, saving as a PSD is the right choice.

Archive the format you shoot in, either Jpeg or RAW. There is absolutely no benefit to convert to PSD or TIFF or DGN and then archive.

JPEG files are degraded each time you open and save them again, so, even though almost all of my business is conducted with JPEGs, I save the original RAW file as the master and only covert and process JPEGs once, doing everything I need to do before hitting the "save" button. If I decide I need to do something differently later, or crop a different way, I'll start all over from the RAW file, instead of messing with the JPEG.

I'm not sure, but I believe as long as you don't open and save them again, JPEGs will maintain their original integrity. Some of this, also, may depend upon the PP software you use. Latest versions of PS work with copies of the originals, instead of the originals, and unless you save it with the same file name, the original stays in tact.

I messed around for a while converting RAW images to PSD, and the PSD were always much larger. Same thing with TIFFs. So I archive and treat the original RAW files the same way I did negatives and slides. From the RAW file, I can edit, correct and convert any which way, as the demand dictates, and I always have the original for future needs.

To save space on my camera's memory cards, I've switched to shooting only RAW, instead of RAW/JPEG.
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt.

I keep all the RAW files on a separate Drobo so nothing gets lost. I'm just trying to keep a manageable workflow for the future.

With files that are 10x the size as JPEGs, I'm hoping not to aquire a large family of Drobos...

When I did my multigeneration tests I re-named, saved, closed and then re-opened before making a slight change to a small part of the picture and then doing the same process. I was quite surprised in an A/B compassion at 300% as I'm very picky about quality.

As to the issue of sRGB, I've settled on this because I can only monitor to this level on my Eizo CG211. I don't want colours I can't see, and if compared to CMYK it's not that much of a hit. The lastthing I want is a surprise on a print because I didn't see it on screen. What I'm seeing on screen is great and I prefer to work with the limitations rather than in absence of knowledge. Of course this is a personal thing - I know there are many who prefer a different approach and that's fine too.

I'll look into the 8-bit limitation of JPEG. Mind you, I have to convert some of my images to 8-bit to get all the filters in PS so a number of my final images have ended up this way anyway. Pity, and I wish PS would work 16 Bit with all it's filters.

Wondering if there are other file type options available to me...?

LEE

Once any corrections are done. Or store the RAW file for possible future use and editing. I have never seen a visible loss of quality when using Jpeg instead of a lossless compression. I even tried and experiement by saving and resaving a file 100 times at Jpeg level 8 in Photoshop. I was able to find changes in fine details compared to the original file, but they were minor. If I did not have the reference file I would never be able to pick out the changes. As for printing or other use? Would not have mattered.

Also, level 10 compression vs. level 12, the 10 file will be 1/2 the size and almost all the time, even with the computer comparing the pixels, there is no difference.

I typically keep RAW files only except for images that have been retouched. If I need to save layers, masks or any other pieces, PSD it is.

Well, as mentioned in another post, since you can't see the difference then it doesn't make any difference. The fact remains, if you open a JPEG file and the re-save it as a JPEG you throw away data. There is no way around it, even if you save at the highest quality.

If you are satisfied and can't see the difference, then by all means continue to use JPEG as your file saving preference.

For us then, folks that can see the difference, I guess we will continue to use PSD, or TIFF, or DNG file formats for our lossless archiving.

It has been stated that each time you open, close, then reopen a jpeg file info is lost. You mentioned that you saved multiple "generations" or copies of the file. I would recommend doing the same test only opening and reopening the same file multiple times.

The easy answer, and for me and it sounds for others as well the best answer, is to store the RAW files in my image management system (Aperture, Lightroom - whichever is your preference, or some other system), store only those files as PSD's that have had adjustments done in Photoshop that I want to be able to access and tweak at a later date if necessary, and output the file format, color space, size, etc. for the specific need of my client end-users as they purchase images. Keep the RAW files is critical if you want to maintain the highest degree of image file integrity over the long term.

The great part about Aperture and Lightroom is that they allow you to catalog your images, maintain a very customizable, searchable database functionality for your images, do most of the image adjustments that you may want to make to many of your images without even having to go to Photoshop - all non-destructive and taking up very little additional storage space for the adjustment file, and output files with whatever parameters you/your clients need, all from within one program. Lightroom gives you much better image manipulation, while I like Aperture's cataloging functionality better. Both programs will continue to improve dramatically in the future.

Oh, and one of the most important things you can do above and beyond all of this is to edit your images properly after each job. Not process, but edit - ie make your selections of what you will keep and what you will trash. There is no reason to keep all images shot on a job if there are obvious duds. Edit ruthlessly and delete the losers right away, leaving you with only top quality images in your library and much less space required to store them.

Hope some of this helps. Good luck!

Execllent point, Bross1. Over the years, I probably have become a better photographer, but I know I've become a better editor--especially since digital. If I have a large number of shots from a day's shoot, I go through them three or four times, whittling them down to only the best, and finally trashing any duplicates or similar shots.

The RAW images remaining get copied into My Pictures. There, I go through them one more time full screen, magnifying them to at least 100 percent for further editing to the trash bin. Then they get processed and converted with the software that came with my camera (really does the best job of basics), then into PS for final touches. After that, I go through them one more time full screen and magnified. Only then are they cataloged and stored.

Every few months, I go through existing stored files and get rid of any old shots that I've done better since. After a year or so, I probably end up with one shot for every 100 original images.
Why keep anything but the best?
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt.

You can't save JPGs in 16bit, by definition JPGs are 8bit/channel. As you noted, if you're saving at max quality JPGs you'll have to re-open and save them probably 50 times before you start to see noticeable degradation. If you make any adjustment layers then I'd advise you to save the PSD file that way you can go back and change your adjustments.

I don't know what your current workflow is (whether you're shooting JPG or RAW, or how you're organizing you files by hand or using a program) but if you haven't looked into programs like Aperture or Lightroom it might be worthwhile. You could shoot RAW (the programs also work fine with JPG) and make basic, overall adjustments and leave the files in RAW. The RAWs while significantly bigger than a JPG, will be smaller than a TIFF or PSD but will be uncompressed and full quality. Lightroom or Aperture can also help you keyword and tag files so that when your library of images is over 100,000 you can find all your shots of mandolin players, or that photo of Bob Smith. Then when you need a JPG you can export it out, or if you want to work on it in photoshop you hit edit and it sends the image over to Photoshop.

A third option that I'm not exactly a fan of but I will throw it out there is the .JP2 (JPEG 2000) file format that allows you to save 16 bit files in lossless compression that is significant smaller than PSD or TIFF files. The problem is that while the format has been around for almost 10 years, it's still rarely used (and to even use it in Photoshop you have to drag a plug-in from your install disk over.) It's always best to stick to open standards, any program can read a JPG or a TIFF.

--
Kurt

Thanks for all the feedback - it's been most useful to hear so many different opinions.

I'm thinking that as I keep the original RAW files anyway I'm not risking all by saving as JPEGs.

I think that I'll have a 2 stage strategy... Images that I want to work up to a higher level will be saved as PSDs and labeled with a colour flag to denote that they have had PS retouching work done. Other images will be initally saved as PSDs but after a month or if hard drive space becomes an issue then I may convert non-retouched images to JPEGs (as they're probably in a "B" class of prefered shots.)

I know the mechanics of what I'm throwing away and the limitations of 8 and 16 Bit, but to be honest I'm still surprised when people say there is an obvious difference because I really can't see it most of the time, (or is that any of the time.) I'm pretty good at seeing the subtle changes in an image or maybe my tests have been on the wrong subject matter. For those that feel there is a difference visually, (rather than just knowing that data is being lost,) it would be great to get a lead on exactly what I should look for and what types of pic will show up examples best.

Thanks,

LEE

I shoot raw and when I get home I immediately convert them to jpeg and burn them to a dvd and store that away..any adjustments I make, cropping, sharpening, etc. gets saved as a jpeg..only special effects like templates, combining images, etc gets saved as a psd and jpeg for any adjustments that may need to be done later...when all is done I burn them to a dvd and stor them separately than the originals.

When we save an image which we will work on in a few months or even years, it's our operational data-storage or a backup. When we save an image someone will view when we are no longer around, it's an archive.

psd is not a bad solution for saving pictures that will be worked on again, provided one is convinced he'll remain an Adobe customer forever. (I'm not, so I save .png's or tiff's).

"Great photographers" (who either know or think they are great believe their images must be saved so that future generations do not have to be Adobe customers in order to appreciate their work. This is why their archives are .jpeg's.

--
Adox

Storage and archiving seemed involved and complicated, until I invested in a 1T external hard drive. Everything seemed to fall into place, and my work flow became fluid, once I had all that storage capacity to play with, and by simply developing a filing system in it similar to the way I organized slides and negatives in real file cabinets for over 30 years, eveything is easy to find and just a click away. It's the best $100 bucks or so I've spent for a long time.

By comparison, Light Room and other programs I tested are much more complicated and time consuming, and they don't store actual copies of your files, but links.
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt.

I would save either the original raw files or a PSD (in my case it's the raw file) in an archive. I save my JPEGs but I don't consider that my archive. Any changes you make to a JPEG are "baked" into it when you save it -- there's no going back, so if you screw it up, it's screwed up for good. (NOTE: Unless you use a program like Lightroom or Aperture but that might be a topic for another discussion.)

That's not the case for raw files. You can always go back to the original.

jack
--
A few of my photos:
http://www.jackkurtzphotography.com or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177 or
my PhotoShelter Archive
http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/kurtzjack

Saving high resolution 8-bit JPEG files seems like saving large 8x10 prints instead of the orginal negatives which are the RAW files (and any sidecar files). Hard drives are cheap so the cost for the storage space should not be a consideration for anyone.

With each wedding I shoot there is at the end when all has been delivered to the couple, about 30GB of space for all the files. Someday I may burn each wedding to a Bllu-Ray disc but for now it is cheaper to store them on a Buffalo RAID box. Each box will hold about 50 weddings.

Each year I get a new RAID box and as the camera files get larger the cost of the hard drives goes down by even more.

jackkurtz said:

I would save either the original raw files or a PSD (in my case it's
the raw file) in an archive. I save my JPEGs but I don't consider
that my archive. Any changes you make to a JPEG are "baked" into it
when you save it -- there's no going back, so if you screw it up,
it's screwed up for good. (NOTE: Unless you use a program like
Lightroom or Aperture but that might be a topic for another
discussion.)

That's not the case for raw files. You can always go back to the
original.

jack

Click to expand...

Go back to the original raw ONLY if the software of the day will read the raw file which is proprietary to each manufacturer. Early Nikon Raw files are not readable now, even by Photoshop so there is no guarantee your raw files will be read in 5 or 10 years from now.backwards compatability will cease in a few years..remember Windows?

If you've ever taken the SAT...

RAW is to JPEG as Negative is to 4x6 print.

If you don't see a difference, you don't know what to look for.

JPEG is 8 bit with 256 levels vs. 4096 at a minimum with RAW or PSD or 16-bit TIFF. I save the RAW, the PSD, and the JPEG files for any images I have spend time working on for a print.

The RAW is the negative so that is always saved. Anyone who worked with ACR version 3 saw new capabilities with ACR 4 and again with ACR 5.x and similar improvements in RAW conversion capabilities with Capture NX or Canon's DPP. To through away the RAW files is really foolish in the extreme.

A 1 terabyte drive today sells for $100 so there is little rationale for destroying images unless there are judged to have zero worth. I like to even keep my mistakes as they are useful learning tools for myself and for others.

Raw files to dvd and network hdd as soon as we get done with transferring to computer. Once all edits are done on the given workstation, raw and sidecar files are renamed and copied to dvd and network, jpgs created and again saved in those two locations. Original raws are deleted from the network but retained on workstation until job is complete. At that time all further edits, album pages, etc. are once again placed on the network and burned to dvd, and workstation files are deleted. That leaves all edited raws, jpgs, and other work on the network for anyone to access and all of that is placed on an external hdd (mirror of network drive). All data is in three places, plus the original unedited raws as a last last last chance backup.

I always keep the jpgs there for easier access for a quick look, but the raws or psds are always kept because there's no reason not to.

--
http://www.stowaway.us