RAW to TIFF question for Lightroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter BBRoberts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BBRoberts

Guest
Hi all,

My RAW files are 11 megs in the A3'', and as much as 24 megs in the Sony A9''. But that's still way smaller then even the ZIP compression on TIFFs when you export them from RAW to TIFF in Lightroom 2. I'm looking at around 5' megs for one Tiff file converted from one RAW file. That's going to fill up my drive, or else to start buying Terabyte drives now just for my TIFF files. I wanted to save my RAW to TIFF for the future since the boogeyman said that someday my RAW files will be of no use cause my proprietary format for RAW will not be readable by future software as camera makers change their formats, etc, etc. TIFF is a standard that will be fine we hope 2' years from now. So to preserve my RAW files, I should convert them to TIFF for storage, right? But now that one TIFF takes up five times as much space as one RAW file, that annoys me, actually it annoys my hard drive, memory and CPU to process and move such huge beasts around from here to there, but once I get it stored in the closet, I'll leave it there, dust and all.

What is the best way to do this? Am I missing something here? Is there a better compression for TIFF I can reduce the size of the files, and also how come Lightroom wants to save it as a Adobe RGB 1998 instead of sRGB? Shouldn't I be saving them for storage as sRGB? I notice also it only offers 8 and 16 bit, what about saving as 48 bit? Ideally I want to save them from RAW to TIFF with if possible precisely the original data they were shot with, so years down the road, I can open Lightroom 1', and work with them as I did from RAW from years ago with all the data available to me.

Thanks in advance,
Bruce
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
With what you said, it is obvious that what you want is to convert to DNG as DNG is an open non proprietary format developped by Adobe and any software maker can use it. So even if Adobe cease to exist itself (!?), it can still work with some other program.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=BBRoberts link=topic=9614.msg6498'#msg6498' date=12717853'1]
I wanted to save my RAW to TIFF for the future since the boogeyman said that someday my RAW files will be of no use cause my proprietary format for RAW will not be readable by future software as camera makers change their formats, etc, etc.
[/quote]

Don't believe the bogeyman. There is no sign that software makers are planning to drop coverage of certain file formats. If Adobe dropped even one raw file format from its present lineup, there would be a mass exodus away from Adobe software, as people would think that the format they use is next to be dropped.

Your fears are unfounded.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Interesting, so you don't think I need to make TIFF or DNG files for safe Keeping? You think my Sony RAW files will probably be just fine to use 2' years from now without a problem? They started making record players again for people who have thousands of albums. Yeah, you are probably right. There is always someone who will create an old adapter to fit new plugs, quite true. I am asumming DNG file format is smaller then TIFF. Then is anyone saving their RAW as TIFF, and is TIFF generally better way to go if you have the space on the drive? I have the space actually, but I just want to get it right. However, if I don't need to do this because RAW will still be readable years down the road in my Sony format, then it would be a big waste of time and space. I still don't know though if TIFF should be saved as Adobe 1998 or sRGB?

thanks,
Bruce
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Simply convert your raw files to DNG at import. You can also convert existing ones from the Catalog if you wish to. Then produce TIFFs only if requested or needed for a particular purpose.

I won't resurrect the old raw/DNG debate over again but if you still think that a raw format can be dropped in the future, this is the way to go. Note that you can also convert a a later (much later) time while there is no rush.

EDIT: Before dropping film recently, we have already seen Kodak dropping his own format... ::)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=BBRoberts link=topic=9614.msg64988#msg64988 date=1271789857]
Interesting, so you don't think I need to make TIFF or DNG files for safe Keeping? You think my Sony RAW files will probably be just fine to use 2' years from now without a problem? They started making record players again for people who have thousands of albums.[/quote]

Apples and oranges. You need hardware capable of playing records, and those hardware devices change over the years and disappear from use, especially as new forms of audio recordings come out and gain huge market share. You can't simply take an audio record and play it on hardware designed to play CDs. Software is a different animal. The code to read a RAW file from Camera X1 exists, and there's no reason for Adobe to remove it from their software. It doesn't disappear or stop working just because Adobe adds code to read raw images from newer camera models. Why? Because in the end, software reads 's and 1s from computer files, and your camera and my camera produce 's and 1s; music playing devices that read vinyl can't read tape or computer files.

Adobe is a software company. I have never spoken to them about this, so please consider what follows to be a complete guess with no supporting data. Adobe makes money by selling software, and by selling upgrades/new versions to people. If they take out the code to support Raw photos from camera X1, then they lose all future sales to people who have photos from camera X1. There is no advantage I can see to Adobe for doing this, but there sure are disadvantages. And if I have photos from the next model, the X2, I'm suddenly thinking I might want to find someone other than Adobe to trust my photos to, because next they're going eliminate their support of the X2.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Even if your Sony raw files are not readable in 2' years, it's not like one day they'll just stop working. So long as you're paying attention, you'll be able to find a tool to convert them to something else when you need to. I don't believe the bogeyman either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, waste of time, huh. It seems stupid and a big hassle. I'll just leave them as raw files then. Its seems crazy to have two file formats for each event and album, and sometimes I take a lot of photos. That sort of begs the question that RAW should become a standard then like TIFF and JPG.

thanks,
Bruce
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Bruce,

Maybe I can add some thoughts (off the DNG/RAW discussion) to solve some missunderstandings:

[quote author=BBRoberts link=topic=9614.msg6498'#msg6498' date=12717853'1].. and also how come Lightroom wants to save it as a Adobe RGB 1998 instead of sRGB? Shouldn't I be saving them for storage as sRGB? ...[/quote]

In LR at Export, you can chose between sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB or any other color space you provide a profile for. So for conservation reasons you would probably even be better off with a wide color space like ProPhoto RGB.

[quote author=BBRoberts link=topic=9614.msg6498'#msg6498' date=12717853'1]... I notice also it only offers 8 and 16 bit, what about saving as 48 bit? Ideally I want to save them from RAW to TIFF with if possible precisely the original data they were shot with, so years down the road, I can open Lightroom 1', and work with them as I did from RAW from years ago with all the data available to me. ...[/quote]

8 bit (for TIFF/JPG) or 16 bit for a TIFF means 8 or 16 bits per channel, making up for 24 or 48 bits per pixel. So you're actually saving with 48 bits per pixel, which makes the big files.

[quote author=BBRoberts link=topic=9614.msg6498'#msg6498' date=12717853'1]... My RAW files are 11 megs in the A3'', and as much as 24 megs in the Sony A9''. But that's still way smaller then even the ZIP compression on TIFFs when you export them from RAW to TIFF in Lightroom 2. I'm looking at around 5' megs for one Tiff file converted from one RAW file. ... [/quote]

This is normal, the calculation (for an uncompressed TIFF) is as follows:

RAW: n MP at 12 (maybe 14) bits each, but each pixel only 1 color
TIFF: n MP at 48 (3 colors x 16) bits each
==> RAW to TIFF compares with Factor 3.5 (with a 14 bit RAW) or 4.' (with a 12 bit RAW)

Please note that my post does not intend to suggest conserving your RAWs as TIFFs, I'm just trying to give some explanations on the "mechanics".

Now one thought about DNG debate:
I know many people suggest that DNG is an open and standard format. IMHO DNG cannot yet compete with TIFF as far as the standardization and openness of the format and the worldwide acceptance is concerned. I am not a supporter of converting everything to DNG for conservation reasons (different story if having one file with "RAW" and development parameters is the aim), and if doing so for conservation reasons, only by embedding the RAW data as well, which doubles the size of the file again.

I for myself think, when and if time comes when my RAWs will no longer be supported by some software, I can then still convert to TIFF, DNG or whatever will be state of the art by that point of time.

Beat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hi,

Thanks for the info, slow to get back here. Yeah, I have decided not to worry about it. I will just leave them as RAW for storage.

thanks,
Bruce
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
At first glance, the appeal of DNG files was that since XMP files are embedded in them it seemed to me that they, the XMP's, would be harder to loose that way. But from the disagreements above, I'm not so sure about this. Since my catalogues are growing quickly, I'd like to get this part of the workflow put to bed, so to speak.

Past posts, as many of them as I've been able to read, are confusing because of varying points of view. I get the feeling that this is a long running and most tiresome subject for skilled Lightroom people so I'm asking this as respectfully as possible: Which is better- the camera's RAW files or DNG?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As you surmised, there is no simple answer to "which is better?" The correct question is, "which is better for me?"

And we can't answer that for you -- we can just outline the pros and cons, many of which have been called out here, and a web search will turn up plenty of other opinions.

For me, personally, I almost never convert to DNG, and almost never write out XMP data.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And I save the original RAW file (not embedded in the DNG file), and send LR a DNG file. Storage is affordable so I find no reason not to save both the RAW and DNG files.

--Ken
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, I see how sides get drawn up on this issue, but keeping both seems reasonable in view of the affordability of storage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top