Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Started 2 months ago | Questions
Zoba132 Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Hi everyone,

In the past I tried to move into RAW shooting, but I was pretty shocked figuring out It's 4 times bigger than the Camera JPEG, and decided to take a step back.

I have more experience now, and I find myself post-processing more often. I am a casual photographer. I will take the Camera for a family event, take 100 photos, and cull to around 40. Out of those 40, I will pick the 5-10 I like best, and post-process them before sending to the Family. The others 30-35 photos are not bad, just not perfect (but still fun to look at when I want a walk on memory lane). I probably not going to post-process those. This raise another question. Maybe those 30-35 photos shouldn't stay RAW and I should just blindly process them to JPEG (like the Camera would do).

Also, I recently discovered the 'Compressed Loseless" RAW settings in my Fuji Camera, and it It means RAW files are only 2 times bigger compared to JPEG. That's something i can live with.

My question is, is there any reason I should stay away from Compress Loseless format before I completely sink into it? I tried view those in Faststone, Photo Mechanic and Lightroom - and all worked. But I wonder if there's a chance that I'm going to have future problems to open my compressed RAW files? (like new Compressing method that will make the old absolute or unpopular to support?)

Thanks!

 Zoba132's gear list:Zoba132's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 16,953
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Zoba132 wrote:

My question is, is there any reason I should stay away from Compress Loseless format before I completely sink into it? I tried view those in Faststone, Photo Mechanic and Lightroom - and all worked. But I wonder if there's a chance that I'm going to have future problems to open my compressed RAW files? (like new Compressing method that will make the old absolute or unpopular to support?)

I don't think there is a problem with compressed lossless, that's what I use. Support for compression usually comes with support of a given camera, and fortunately there are folks who make free and open source software for processing these files widely available. If this software can't be found anymore, we have far greater problems than just recovering digital family photos.

OK, maybe eventually 'bit rot' will hit the file, making it partly, largely, or completely unreadable. Uncompressed files don't have that problem: usually corrupted bits will just make a bit or a small set of bits garbage, but everything else can be recovered.

But then you do have backups? Of course, eventually bit rot will get to those as well. Error rates of one in a trillion used to seem really good back in the old days, but now with terabyte drives, that doesn't seem too secure does it?

"Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you shall return."

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D +4 more
OP Zoba132 Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Hi Mark,

yea, already know many apps can support that, even freeware like Ifran View. Thank you, will keep using compressed Loseless!

 Zoba132's gear list:Zoba132's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II
techie takes pics Senior Member • Posts: 1,325
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?
1

Also make sure to cull, organize and tag your photo's.

If you don't that trip to memory lane will be a bad one.

Seriously, if you have 50 photos and 35 are not worth it, quickly select and delete them. You have 5-10 really nice photo's, you didn't like the poor ones in the first pass, you won't miss them later.  They are the raw material that was used to produce 5-10 really nice photo's; the eggs you needed to break to make the omelette.

I go through the photos of a shoot once and I award 1-5 stars. 3 is the middle level; those technically correct, but only interesting to the people who are in it. They're snapshots, not photographs.
0-1-2 really are not good; any post-processing is a rescue mission, not the polishing of a great image.

I bin all 0-1-2 stars in one go.
There is pshycology at play here. Deleting 35 photo's one-by-one gives a sense of loss, 35 times.
So I award stars first and then delete all unteresting photo's in one go without looking.

 techie takes pics's gear list:techie takes pics's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus E-M5 III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 +6 more
pforsell
pforsell Veteran Member • Posts: 4,114
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?
2

The only possible issue with lossless compressed raw files is that if the file gets corrupted, the recovery might be very difficult or impossible because of RLL and similar compression algorithms. A few corrupted bits in the middle of the file might render it completely gibberish and the uncompression would be unsuccesful.

The probability of corrupted files? Very very low, I'd say, but you asked what are the possible worries.

In any case I only shoot uncompressed. I can extract the raw data from a slightly corrupted raw file with a hex editor if need be, and fix the few destroyed pixels. In a compressed file everything after the error will be gibberish until the end of the file.

-- hide signature --

Peter
_
Jedem das Seine, mir das Meiste!

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +25 more
OP Zoba132 Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

techie takes pics wrote:

Also make sure to cull, organize and tag your photo's.

Yes! I do all the above!

I'm pretty weak with culling. I might go take 100 pictures, cull to 40, and post-process 5-10 of those.

The extra 35-30 picture, and not amazing pictures, but still fun to watch. Like, I keep a picture of all family members looking at the camera, but I also keep one where non-look at the camera, but my Grandma did - and she was smiling. I probably can't post-process this picture, or send it to people, I can't even cull it without making is too pixelated. But still, I still end with around 20-30% that are not amazing, but I still find a reason to keep somehow. I might even be 3 pictures from the exactly same scene with 2-3 seconds between them - but all three are quite good and I don't know which is better.

 Zoba132's gear list:Zoba132's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II
OP Zoba132 Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Oh, that's a smart idea. Extracting the JPEG preview from the RAW in case of an error. That's good enough for me. Sounds like Compressed Loseless it is

 Zoba132's gear list:Zoba132's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II
JasonTheBirder
JasonTheBirder Senior Member • Posts: 1,682
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?
1

Compressed lossless is safe.

But my advice is just delete the less than stellar ones. Keeping photographs made sense when people took less of them. But now, over time, even the best ones will run into the thousands and no one will care about or look at the second-tier stuff.

-- hide signature --

My personal website: https://jpolak.org/

OP Zoba132 Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Isn't that the story of everything in life sadly?

We keep stuff we care about, and replace it with other stuff we care about. It's there for the sake of being there.

I working to keep less, but it's hard

 Zoba132's gear list:Zoba132's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II
JasonTheBirder
JasonTheBirder Senior Member • Posts: 1,682
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Zoba132 wrote:

Isn't that the story of everything in life sadly?

We keep stuff we care about, and replace it with other stuff we care about. It's there for the sake of being there.

I working to keep less, but it's hard

Absolutely true....I am a bit of a pack rat myself when it comes to pictures. But recently, I began deleting more of them and keeping only the 3 or 4 star ones when I realized that I automatically set the filter for 3 stars every time I open a folder.

-- hide signature --

My personal website: https://jpolak.org/

OP Zoba132 Contributing Member • Posts: 503
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

I'm hiking a lot, and I used to own Compact Camera before that. I would walk with the camera out in hand hand, finger on the shutter, and constantly taking pictures every minutes or so. I have SOOO many picture I can probably cull if I'll go back. It just back then - they were soo small in size. And today I'm more careful because of the RAW size, AND - when you really get into real photography - you don't need 100 photos that look the same, you have a different view on things

 Zoba132's gear list:Zoba132's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 II
BrownieVet Senior Member • Posts: 3,718
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Is it safe to assume you are aware of the three raw recording types
and also assume you are aware choice of recording depth.
Knowing these, your priorities and objective should dictate your choice.
Here is a refresher in case you don't remember.
Lossy vs Lossless Image Compression: Beginner's Guidewww.hostinger.ph › tutorials › lossy-vs-lossless
Lossy image compression is a process that removes some of the data from your image file, reducing the overall file size. This process is irreversible, meaning that the file information will be removed permanently. Some of the algorithms used for lossy compression include the discrete wavelet transform, fractal compression, and transform encryption.

Greybeard2017
Greybeard2017 Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: Compressed Loseless - Safe to Use?

Zoba132 wrote:

Hi everyone,

In the past I tried to move into RAW shooting, but I was pretty shocked figuring out It's 4 times bigger than the Camera JPEG, and decided to take a step back.

I have more experience now, and I find myself post-processing more often. I am a casual photographer. I will take the Camera for a family event, take 100 photos, and cull to around 40. Out of those 40, I will pick the 5-10 I like best, and post-process them before sending to the Family. The others 30-35 photos are not bad, just not perfect (but still fun to look at when I want a walk on memory lane). I probably not going to post-process those. This raise another question. Maybe those 30-35 photos shouldn't stay RAW and I should just blindly process them to JPEG (like the Camera would do).

Also, I recently discovered the 'Compressed Loseless" RAW settings in my Fuji Camera, and it It means RAW files are only 2 times bigger compared to JPEG. That's something i can live with.

My question is, is there any reason I should stay away from Compress Loseless format before I completely sink into it? I tried view those in Faststone, Photo Mechanic and Lightroom - and all worked. But I wonder if there's a chance that I'm going to have future problems to open my compressed RAW files? (like new Compressing method that will make the old absolute or unpopular to support?)

Thanks!

Lossless compressed raw is more complicated if you are ever likely to switch to Apple computers (or tablets) as they aren't supported.

 Greybeard2017's gear list:Greybeard2017's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm X-S10
BrownieVet Senior Member • Posts: 3,718
Are you serious?

Greybeard2017 wrote:

Lossless compressed raw is more complicated if you are ever likely to switch to Apple computers (or tablets) as they aren't supported.

Look at the upper left corners of the screen shot!

All my NEF shots are LOSSLESS

Greybeard2017
Greybeard2017 Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: Are you serious?

BrownieVet wrote:

Greybeard2017 wrote:

Lossless compressed raw is more complicated if you are ever likely to switch to Apple computers (or tablets) as they aren't supported.

Look at the upper left corners of the screen shot!

All my NEF shots are LOSSLESS

The OP has a Fujifilm camera which doesn't support the NEF format

 Greybeard2017's gear list:Greybeard2017's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm X-S10
BrownieVet Senior Member • Posts: 3,718
Do you know what is NEF?

Greybeard2017 wrote:

BrownieVet wrote:

Greybeard2017 wrote:

Lossless compressed raw is more complicated if you are ever likely to switch to Apple computers (or tablets) as they aren't supported.

Look at the upper left corners of the screen shot!

All my NEF shots are LOSSLESS

The OP has a Fujifilm camera which doesn't support the NEF format

Every camera manufacturer has their version of raw.  Fuji is RAF and Nikon is NEF.
.
My response has nothing to do with Fuji nor Nikon.
My response is to to YOUR CLAIM that Apple computer does not support LOSSLESS.
.
Do you own an Apple computer?
If you do, and assuming yuo have a Fuji camera . . . take photos in RAF LOSSLESS
Download those RAF file to your Apple desktop
select any one of those RAF file
Your Apple will display an icon image of that file
and press the SPACEBAR . . . a larger image will be displayed.
.
If you save that file to iPhoto or Photo,  you could even edit that file.
Naturally,  whatever photo EDITOR software installed in your computer THAT SUPPORTS RAF will be able to process / edit that can convert the file to other formats.

Greybeard2017
Greybeard2017 Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: Do you know what is NEF?

The OP has a Fujifilm camera which doesn't support the NEF format

Every camera manufacturer has their version of raw. Fuji is RAF and Nikon is NEF.
.
My response has nothing to do with Fuji nor Nikon.
My response is to to YOUR CLAIM that Apple computer does not support LOSSLESS.

I was responding to the OP

 Greybeard2017's gear list:Greybeard2017's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm X-S10
BrownieVet Senior Member • Posts: 3,718
Re: Do you know what is NEF?
1

Greybeard2017 wrote:

The OP has a Fujifilm camera which doesn't support the NEF format

Every camera manufacturer has their version of raw. Fuji is RAF and Nikon is NEF.
.
My response has nothing to do with Fuji nor Nikon.
My response is to to YOUR CLAIM that Apple computer does not support LOSSLESS.

I was responding to the OP

Of course you are . . . but
You are giving the OP WRONG information.
Seems like you are misrepresenting your opinion about Apple as facts. . .
and not just Apple but about raw files in general and Lossless in particular.

Greybeard2017
Greybeard2017 Senior Member • Posts: 1,856
Re: Do you know what is NEF?

BrownieVet wrote:

Greybeard2017 wrote:

The OP has a Fujifilm camera which doesn't support the NEF format

Every camera manufacturer has their version of raw. Fuji is RAF and Nikon is NEF.
.
My response has nothing to do with Fuji nor Nikon.
My response is to to YOUR CLAIM that Apple computer does not support LOSSLESS.

I was responding to the OP

Of course you are . . . but
You are giving the OP WRONG information.
Seems like you are misrepresenting your opinion about Apple as facts. . .
and not just Apple but about raw files in general and Lossless in particular.

I was giving advice to the OP about his camera - the discussion was about the Compressed Lossless Raw setting in a Fuji camera. As discussed in the original post.

It is a fact that they are not supported by Apple - it is my opinion that this complicates the workflow.

 Greybeard2017's gear list:Greybeard2017's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm X-S10
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads