Re: [Leica] 32 bit digital cameras

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

>On Feb 2, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>>At 2:03 PM -0500 2/2/04, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>>>>...
>>>
>>>Photoshop can read 48 bit TIFF files -- indeed the TIFF format is 
>>>the only one I use with Photoshiop (7/CS) as it can save layers, 
>>>alpha channels etc. It is unfortunate that the cameras don't save 
>>>in TIFF format directly, but in any case one might consider 
>>>converting from a device dependent RAW TIFF colorspace into a 
>>>device independent colorspace (e.g. Adobe1998/ProPhoto etc.) for 
>>>editing purposes.
>>>
>>>Jonathan*
>>>
>>>*who exclusively uses digital Leica products, the Digital M3 -- 
>>>Tri-X etc. souped in whatever and scanned into Photoshop -- 5400 x 
>>>7000+ x 48 bit resolution for under a grand :-))
>>
>>I believe you're talking about a couple of different and not 
>>necessarily related items.
>>
>>Photoshop can read and write a large number of file formats, 
>>including TIFF at various bit depths, and the .psd format, which is 
>>its own and will retain the greatest amount of information, as far 
>>as Photoshop is concerned. If you intend to work further on a file, 
>>it's best to save it in the Photoshop format.
>
>According to Blatner and Fraser p665: "... Photoshop 7 has made the 
>Photoshop format both less necessary and less convenient ... almost 
>anything you can save in a Photoshop file you can also save in 
>either a TIFF or PDF file..."

_almost_ can be important. Not all parts are saved. If you want to 
_archive_ a modified file, with most of the layer information, etc, 
and you have the space, TIFF is a good format. Archiving it as a flat 
TIFF might be even better for compatibility and greater longevity.

>
>>
>>Photoshop can also now read certain RAW formats, as long as they 
>>aren't proprietary, encrypted, or made available since the last 
>>Photoshop plug-in revision.
>>
>>Some cameras _can_ save in TIFF format directly, and they can be 
>>colour space tagged. The reason few companies do this and few 
>>people that have cameras that can do this use it is that TIFF files 
>>are 2 to 3 times as large as the RAW formats, which are losslessly 
>>compressed and hold the same information. So TIFF for the most part 
>>is pointless, as the data throughput issues are already a limiting 
>>factor with almost all cameras and storage media.
>
>Err no. It is entirely possible to use lossless compression with TIFF files.

I didn't say TIFF is lossy. Its just large. The problem isn't that 
TIFF isn't an OK format, it's just that it's about the largest, and 
big means SLOW for camera use, and storage. Those are often important 
points, especially in camera.

>  It is the industry standard.

I think its safe to say that at this point Photoshop is also an 
industry standard. However, in the end all standards change. 
Photoshop might go first, but TIFF will also.

>Now it is also possible to have uncompressed TIFF files, so although 
>your TIFFs might be 2-3 times as large as your RAW files, this need 
>not be the case.

RAW formats generally have greater compression, and allow a greater 
range of manipulation without degratdation than TIFF. TIFF shooting 
and compression takes more time, as RAW is closer to what the sensor 
produces in the first place, and post picture taking processing takes 
place in your computer, not the camera. Therefore significantly 
faster, which is the point of RAW rather than TIFF

>
>Beware that if you archive your files as RAW, you may not be able to 
>recover them in several years i.e. once the particular RAW format 
>has been discarded, forgotten and no drivers exist for whatever 
>computer you will be using. On the other hand, the TIFF format which 
>is a standard and is well document and supported by many many 
>programs on essentially all platforms, will likely be readable into 
>the future.

Yes, but shooting TIFF is slower, and storage is larger. Present 
cameras are not well served by TIFF. The smart thing to do, of 
course, is shoot RAW, and convert the good images. Save those as TIFF 
or JPEG depending on what you plan to do with them.

>I've been doing digital imaging for 25 years now  and I've been 
>burned more times than I care to admit by so-called "RAW" file 
>formats. I'm still snapping up M3s/M6s, and Deardorffs for that 
>matter, at good prices. That said, what it is possible to do with a 
>good scan, and particularly with color, in Photoshop is pretty 
>amazing -- I'm just waiting for Photoshop to be upgraded to be able 
>to use more than 2 gb of memory.
>
>Jonathan


- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html