Which is the best format to edit in - DNG, TIFF, etc etc??

jssee said:

I have been editing pictures in Lightroom for awhile now, but I am starting to think I've been doing it completely wrong.

I shoot in RAW with a Canon 40D and then edit those RAW files in Lightroom 5. I export my finished photos as JPEGs mainly for web uploading. As I've started to book more sessions for friends and family, I want to make sure that I am producing the highest quality photo which can be used to print whatever size they want once they download the files.

After doing loads of research, I'm now worried that I've in fact been decreasing the quality by editing my RAW files instead of saving them as TIFFs and then doing edits. Is this true? I've read that a TIFF file allows unlimited edits/saves and will not lose more photo data during that process. Is this not the same for RAW files? Also, it seems that the DNG format is actually the best to use. Is this correct? If so, should I open my RAW files in Lightroom, immediately save them as a TIFF/DNG file, and THEN begin editing?

It sounds like it's necessary to use TIFF/DNG files when printing, but I suppose my main question is do I need to do all of the editing in these formats in order to preserve quality, or can I just export EDITED photos that I know will be printed in these formats?

Additionally, what file settings/image sizing/metadata should be chosen to accompany these formats?

Sorry for such an extensive question. This has been driving me nuts, and I appreciate ANY help given. I care about the photographs I take and want to produce the best work I can. Please help me!!

Click to expand...

The only file type that gets degraded by repeated editing is JPG. And even that's hardly noticeable.

Just use the Canon CR2 RAW files. Lightroom, or any other RAW editor, does not alter the RAW file during editing. It just generates a separate "sidecar" file with the editing information. So your RAW files are just the same as when you took the picture.

I am not aware of any benefit to using Adobe DNG files for a camera whose native RAW file is supported by Lightroom.

I customarily use JPG's for printing. In theory, a TIFF will give you better results but I don't think the difference is noticeable. I send my JPG's in at full size; the printer scales as required.

thank you so much leonard. i can now breathe easy knowing that my edits with the RAW file have not decreased photo quality

if i only have a JPEG for some shots, is it recommended to convert to another file before editing...as there is already a lower amount of data present to begin with? i don't want to lose even MORE data because of processing...

thanks again! i am very appreciative of your advice

jssee said:

I have been editing pictures in Lightroom for awhile now, but I am starting to think I've been doing it completely wrong.

I shoot in RAW with a Canon 40D and then edit those RAW files in Lightroom 5. I export my finished photos as JPEGs mainly for web uploading. As I've started to book more sessions for friends and family, I want to make sure that I am producing the highest quality photo which can be used to print whatever size they want once they download the files.

Click to expand...

Jpg is fine for almost any size print. If you think you are going to print BIG (say, > 20x24 inches), then don't reduce the size.

jssee said:

After doing loads of research, I'm now worried that I've in fact been decreasing the quality by editing my RAW files instead of saving them as TIFFs and then doing edits. Is this true? I've read that a TIFF file allows unlimited edits/saves and will not lose more photo data during that process. Is this not the same for RAW files? Also, it seems that the DNG format is actually the best to use. Is this correct? If so, should I open my RAW files in Lightroom, immediately save them as a TIFF/DNG file, and THEN begin editing?

Click to expand...

What I do is edit in raw as much as possible (I use ACDSee Pro and I never convert to dng). If I need editing in a bit mapped editor (like Photoshop or PaintShop Pro), I usually export to tif and do my edits with tif. I tend to do my backups on both the raw and tiff files, Disk space is pretty cheap any more. I consider jpg my distribution/printing file format. I can't remember the last time I used something other than jpg. I never back up my jpg files. If I need one, I'll just make another from the tif file or raw.

I rarely print at home, just commercial printing labs. But if I do print on the home printer, I print from whatever I got, raw, tif, or jpg, whatever is convenient. The typical home printer can't tell the difference anyway and the commercial printer services seem to prefer jpgs.

jssee said:

It sounds like it's necessary to use TIFF/DNG files when printing,

Click to expand...

Nope, you've misinterpreted what you've read, tiff/dng/raw are great for editing, they offer no real practical advantage for printing.

jssee said:

but I suppose my main question is do I need to do all of the editing in these formats in order to preserve quality, or can I just export EDITED photos that I know will be printed in these formats?

Click to expand...

Not really, do what works for you. Don't get bogged down in other people's opinions on "What's right", instead, trust your eyes. This is not a cure for cancer, it's just photography.

jssee said:

Additionally, what file settings/image sizing/metadata should be chosen to accompany these formats?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are over thinking this thing. There are no universal file settings, and for sure no image sizes that work for everyone. Metadata? if you use your photo organizer to search for photos in a library, it's good to have some metadata. Again, no hard rules. I generally save place, event, date, time taken. I try to keep exposure,camera, and lens data, but that is usually captured by the camera anyway. You save whatever metadata you think you might need.

jssee said:

Sorry for such an extensive question. This has been driving me nuts, and I appreciate ANY help given. I care about the photographs I take and want to produce the best work I can. Please help me!!

Click to expand...

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/

not a cure for cancer...it's photography - ha thanks for the reality check.

and an even bigger thank you for your answers/advice/tips.

i know there's not one, perfect formula...suppose i just want some sort of guideline so that i don't throw away all of the hard work i've done by choosing the wrong numbers/settings during the final steps. i'm sure some numbers coordinate with certain settings...like choosing 8 bit or 16 bit. can't remember what i even read about that; my mind is whirlwind right now!

i'm going to go ahead and ask another question in case you can shed light for me here:

if i only have a JPEG for some shots, is it recommended to convert to another file before editing...as there is already a lower amount of data present to begin with? i don't want to lose even MORE data because of processing...

thanks!

When using JPEGs I generally store files using a high quality setting ( like 95% ) which minimizes the impact of the JPEG compression process.

I've seen people deliberately load and re-save JPEGs an enormous number of times to test degradation, and it is barely noticeable even after extreme testing.

The JPEG algorithms are designed specifically to keep data that humans find significant and loss tend to be in data that humans do not notice.

jssee said:

I have been editing pictures in Lightroom for awhile now, but I am starting to think I've been doing it completely wrong.

I shoot in RAW with a Canon 40D and then edit those RAW files in Lightroom 5. I export my finished photos as JPEGs mainly for web uploading.

Click to expand...

That's perfect. LR does not actually change your RAW file. It records your editing separately, and applies it whenever you bring up the file for viewing, printing, or exporting. SRGB JPG is perfect for web files.

jssee said:

As I've started to book more sessions for friends and family, I want to make sure that I am producing the highest quality photo which can be used to print whatever size they want once they download the files.

Click to expand...

What you output for friends and family depends on what they are going to do with the files. If they are going to take/send the file to Walmart (or similar) for prints, then export an sRGB JPG. You can either size it exactly for them (usually at 300ppi), or just export a full-resolution file.

jssee said:

After doing loads of research, I'm now worried that I've in fact been decreasing the quality by editing my RAW files instead of saving them as TIFFs and then doing edits. Is this true? I've read that a TIFF file allows unlimited edits/saves and will not lose more photo data during that process. Is this not the same for RAW files? Also, it seems that the DNG format is actually the best to use. Is this correct? If so, should I open my RAW files in Lightroom, immediately save them as a TIFF/DNG file, and THEN begin editing?

Click to expand...

No, just edit the RAW in LR. If you bring the file into another program (such as Photoshop or the OnOne Perfect Suite), choose to edit a copy, and then you'll have to save it in another format. I generally save that copy as a PSD, though you can use TIFF.

jssee said:

It sounds like it's necessary to use TIFF/DNG files when printing, but I suppose my main question is do I need to do all of the editing in these formats in order to preserve quality, or can I just export EDITED photos that I know will be printed in these formats?

Click to expand...

If you're printing your own, just print directly out of Lightroom. The RAW + captured RAW edits is highest quality, and LR does a great job with printing. If you're sending the files out, then you need to know what the outside printer wants (or can deal with). The VAST MAJORITY of labs are happiest with an sRGB JPG (and the Pro labs will also be happy with that). A professional lab might also deal with a number of formats, including TIFF, and Adobe RGB as well as sRGB color spaces. Unless you're doing critical, large-format, expensive-paper type prints, you're unlikely to notice a difference.

jssee said:

Additionally, what file settings/image sizing/metadata should be chosen to accompany these formats?

Click to expand...

File settings depend on who you're dealing with. In most cases the lab will just have a limit on the maximum file size (in megabytes) and their printer software deals with any resizing. In some cases, the printing company will suggest that you provide an appropriately-sized file at 300 ppi. Metatdata shouldn't matter.

If you know in advance what the output will be (size and proportion of print) you can provide a custom match during export. However, most labs have figured out that the majority of individuals don't understand much about the technology. So software at a kiosk or online simply tells the customer if they have enough resolution/pixels for a good print, and gives them cropping options if need be (if, for example, the customer chooses an 8 x 10" print, but the file is 2:3 proportion).

jssee said:

Sorry for such an extensive question. This has been driving me nuts, and I appreciate ANY help given. I care about the photographs I take and want to produce the best work I can. Please help me!!

Click to expand...

Are you using a color-managed system (calibrated monitor)? You'll get better color prints (i.e. more closely matched to your on-screen editing). However, if you go to the trouble of color-management and creating "exact-size" files, you may want to look for an outside printing source that has an option to run the files with no correction. Lots of inexpensive labs use "auto-correct" software which tries to optimize the color, contrast and saturation of the images. If you've already tweaked the saturation of your image, you don't need the VIVID PRINTS lab doing their thing on top of that.

It is fine to continue using raw. TIFF is also okay but the extra conversion is unnecessary.

jssee said:

if i only have a JPEG for some shots, is it recommended to convert to another file before editing...as there is already a lower amount of data present to begin with? i don't want to lose even MORE data because of processing...

Click to expand...

It would still be an 8-bit file, even if you converted it to a different file format (which might be bigger in size, despite not containing any more information than the original JPEG). Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw treat JPEGs exactly as they treat Raw, DNG and TIFF files. It's still based on data and "instructions", not pixel-editing. The JPEG you're editing isn't affected at all. When you export, the software applies the changes you've made, but never does it do that to the original file - it always stays as it is.

That being said, I may have misunderstood you a bit. Did you mean perhaps that exporting in a different file format, after working on a JPEG, might give better results? If so, that is correct - creating a new JPEG does apply compression upon the already-compressed file. So saving as a less-compressed file, like TIFF, can spare you from over-compressing files. But the truth to the matter is, you can probably still print a JPEG that's been edited and compressed again to JPEG, and it would still be decent. Don't get too hung up on theory - try it yourself and see what works!

nt=No Text

jssee said:

I have been editing pictures in Lightroom for awhile now, but I am starting to think I've been doing it completely wrong.

I shoot in RAW with a Canon 40D and then edit those RAW files in Lightroom 5. I export my finished photos as JPEGs mainly for web uploading. As I've started to book more sessions for friends and family, I want to make sure that I am producing the highest quality photo which can be used to print whatever size they want once they download the files.

After doing loads of research, I'm now worried that I've in fact been decreasing the quality by editing my RAW files instead of saving them as TIFFs and then doing edits. Is this true? I've read that a TIFF file allows unlimited edits/saves and will not lose more photo data during that process. Is this not the same for RAW files? Also, it seems that the DNG format is actually the best to use. Is this correct? If so, should I open my RAW files in Lightroom, immediately save them as a TIFF/DNG file, and THEN begin editing?

It sounds like it's necessary to use TIFF/DNG files when printing, but I suppose my main question is do I need to do all of the editing in these formats in order to preserve quality, or can I just export EDITED photos that I know will be printed in these formats?

Additionally, what file settings/image sizing/metadata should be chosen to accompany these formats?

Sorry for such an extensive question. This has been driving me nuts, and I appreciate ANY help given. I care about the photographs I take and want to produce the best work I can. Please help me!!

Click to expand...

no, edit in RAW and then save to jpg. no need for intermediate processing with TIFF or DNG

jssee said:

After doing loads of research, I'm now worried that I've in fact been decreasing the quality by editing my RAW files instead of saving them as TIFFs and then doing edits. Is this true? I've read that a TIFF file allows unlimited edits/saves and will not lose more photo data during that process. Is this not the same for RAW files? Also, it seems that the DNG format is actually the best to use. Is this correct? If so, should I open my RAW files in Lightroom, immediately save them as a TIFF/DNG file, and THEN begin editing?

Click to expand...

When the data is in the program and being edited it is not in any file format. File formats apply only to data stored on disk. In the program, it is simply a set of three numbers for each pixel.

The big difference when editing is whether the data being processed is in 8 or 16 bit numbers. Adobe's raw import converts all files to 16 bit, but if the data has previously been stored as 8-bit (as in a JPG), some information is permanently lost.

16 bit processing, even of previously 8-bit data, allows more steps in a colour gradient, to avoid pixellation or banding.

jssee said:

It sounds like it's necessary to use TIFF/DNG files when printing, but I suppose my main question is do I need to do all of the editing in these formats in order to preserve quality, or can I just export EDITED photos that I know will be printed in these formats?

Additionally, what file settings/image sizing/metadata should be chosen to accompany these formats?

Sorry for such an extensive question. This has been driving me nuts, and I appreciate ANY help given. I care about the photographs I take and want to produce the best work I can. Please help me!!

Click to expand...

jssee said:

if i only have a JPEG for some shots, is it recommended to convert to another file before editing...as there is already a lower amount of data present to begin with? i don't want to lose even MORE data because of processing...

Click to expand...

While it is true jpg does lose an infinitessimally small amount of detail each time an image is saved, you would have to open then save a jpg several thousand times to be able to see that degradation. And the truth is, a jpg gets opened edited, and saved maybe ten times in its life. For the rest of the time it gets looked at, copied, emailed, printed, and posted on the internet. None of which causes any degradation what so ever.

But if that miniscule level of degradation bothers you, it's ok convert to something else. You aren't any less of a photographer because of it, and you don't become a better photographer by fetishising certain practices because someone, somewhere, said, "you're not a REAL photographer if you don't . . . (insert whatever nonsense is the current fad here)"

In my mind, good photography is mostly about seeing, and taking pictures is just a record of what we saw. Everything else is just housekeeping. Relax and enjoy it.