The longevity and preservation of TIF files

[hirohhhh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have some quite complicated tif files with lots of masks and layers and adjustments, smart filters etc. I'm thinking, down the road, in 10-20 years, would they render the same as they do today. If I open this very same tif file in Photoshop 2040, would it look identical, or Adobe may change the algorithm that renders those pixels. Would it be wise and safe to have a backup of flattened TIFs, or even 100% JPGs.

Same could be said for DNGs, but in my case, TIFs are more important because I put a lot more effort into editing. My DNGs are just few sliders in Lightroom, so nothing to worry about even though it that changes slightly over time.

What do you think?

[250swb]

You could just do the right amount of post processing for the particular image and then flatten it. It may concentrate the mind not to have an automatic option to carry on fiddling ad infinitum? But you would still have your original .dng if it was essential to start again. It is obviously tempting to want to make little changes after a few days or even months later, and painters have been known to be retouching their work as it is hung on the wall. But sooner or later the audience needs to understand that an image is final and the artist has moved on even if it's to start again on another canvas or photograph of exactly the same subject. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[frame-it]

8 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

I have some quite complicated tif files with lots of masks and layers and adjustments, smart filters etc. I'm thinking, down the road, in 10-20 years, would they render the same as they do today. If I open this very same tif file in Photoshop 2040, would it look identical, or Adobe may change the algorithm that renders those pixels. Would it be wise and safe to have a backup of flattened TIFs, or even 100% JPGs.

Same could be said for DNGs, but in my case, TIFs are more important because I put a lot more effort into editing. My DNGs are just few sliders in Lightroom, so nothing to worry about even though it that changes slightly over time.

What do you think?

will you actually re-edit these pics after 20 years?

 

[hirohhhh]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

You could just do the right amount of post processing for the particular image and then flatten it. It may concentrate the mind not to have an automatic option to carry on fiddling ad infinitum? But you would still have your original .dng if it was essential to start again. It is obviously tempting to want to make little changes after a few days or even months later, and painters have been known to be retouching their work as it is hung on the wall. But sooner or later the audience needs to understand that an image is final and the artist has moved on even if it's to start again on another canvas or photograph of exactly the same subject. 

Good idea, that makes a lot of sense, but kinda scary to actually do it  I'd rather have the original file with layers and flattened out as a backup.

30 minutes ago, frame-it said:

will you actually re-edit these pics after 20 years?

 

Good question. Probably not, or most likely not, but if the algorithms changes and I didn't flatten them, and all I have is just a bunch of layers and masks, the question is, would I be even able to open it and see the image I originally created.

Anyway, this was just an interesting thought I had recently about digital archives in general. Not that I actually plan to edit my images in 20 years

[P1505]

Always keep flat files of important images alongside the layered images. With digital preservation “shearing layers” are the point of concern. These are the actions and interpretations that exist to render a final asset. They change over time, and as they do so does the stability and viability of the original file.

Its an interesting subject to me as I spent a long while defining a digital preservation strategy for the National Archives.

It was a job that I thought would be dull but turned out to be fascinating.

[LocalHero1953]

As a theoretical exercise a while back (theoretical, because I never put it into practice), I tried to guess the best way to preserve images for the distant future. I concluded that online storage as JPEGs was best. JPEGs because it is the most common non-proprietary image format, so the software to read it should be available longest. Online storage, because the facilities for storing and reading the files should be readily updated as technology develops. Hardware specific storage is vulnerable to technology change: there are still a few 3.5" floppy disks around the house without a disk drive, I threw out a load of backup tapes a while ago because the tape drive broke down, and I think we only have one battered DVD read/writer.

I also concluded that the storage medium most immune to technology change was archival paper read by the Mk. I Eyeball. 

[zeitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

TIFF is an old raster image file format of great versatility that has been kept up to date because it is widely used for many purposes including archival storage.  Standard TIFF is a flat file (no masks or layers).  TIFF is older than Photoshop.  Adobe now owns TIFF.  Like any of these specifications, the capabilities have expanded over time to suit current needs.  Photoshop, and I assume other image processing programs, can produce layered TIFF files using tags.

If you are concerned about future usability of layered TIFF files, save the layered TIFF file, flatten the image and save a second non-layered TIFF file.  You now have both paths covered.

For more information see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF

[Stuart Richardson]

11 hours ago, P1505 said:

Always keep flat files of important images alongside the layered images. With digital preservation “shearing layers” are the point of concern. These are the actions and interpretations that exist to render a final asset. They change over time, and as they do so does the stability and viability of the original file.

Its an interesting subject to me as I spent a long while defining a digital preservation strategy for the National Archives.

It was a job that I thought would be dull but turned out to be fascinating.

Very interesting! Did you find TIFF to be the main format for archiving? I would assume it would be, given how many scanners seem to default to it and given how long it has been around. It seems like institutions will need to maintain access to the TIFF format, unless they eventually convert it to some other format... What were your conclusions? What about DNG?

[Jeff S]

On 4/2/2022 at 3:34 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

I also concluded that the storage medium most immune to technology change was archival paper read by the Mk. I Eyeball. 

I make at least one ‘work print’ of all pics I deem ‘worthy’, and note on the back a few key adjustment settings that I applied in ImagePrint (TIFF) as modifications to my backed up DNGs out of LR.  The limited number of more ‘special’ pics have already been matted/framed by me, or put in portfolio folders, etc. That’s about all the preservation I care about; in 20 years I’ll probably be gone, and nobody else will care about or try to sort through a bunch of digital files.

Jeff

[otto.f]

On 4/1/2022 at 3:17 AM, hirohhhh said:

What do you think?

Interesting question because my TIFFs can be quite large and why would I keep them? It may be that apps evolve, but I evolve myself too in how I look and see things. Quite a lot of TIFFs are from the time I did not print with ImagePrint yet and that made all the difference. So, if I want to pp or print an older photo again, I see only advantage in postprocessing from the DNG scratch. I must add though that I’m a naturalist in photoshopping, I don’t do kitsch or far from reality editing; squeezing in moons,  stormy skies or MachuPichu backgrounds are not my thing. 

[250swb]

5 hours ago, otto.f said:

Interesting question because my TIFFs can be quite large and why would I keep them? It may be that apps evolve, but I evolve myself too in how I look and see things. Quite a lot of TIFFs are from the time I did not print with ImagePrint yet and that made all the difference. So, if I want to pp or print an older photo again, I see only advantage in postprocessing from the DNG scratch. I must add though that I’m a naturalist in photoshopping, I don’t do kitsch or far from reality editing; squeezing in moons,  stormy skies or MachuPichu backgrounds are not my thing. 

+1

[otto.f]

Btw, I don’t understand so much the question: I assume that your settings before converting to Tiff are kept in LR? At least that is the case for my DNG’s in CaptureOne. So if you throw away your Tiff, your settings, layers, etc. aren’t lost in LR are they?

[P1505]

On 4/2/2022 at 7:04 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

Very interesting! Did you find TIFF to be the main format for archiving? I would assume it would be, given how many scanners seem to default to it and given how long it has been around. It seems like institutions will need to maintain access to the TIFF format, unless they eventually convert it to some other format... What were your conclusions? What about DNG?

Yes, TIFF was the one. You keep the original, so if you shot RAW you’d keep that to enable access to all the data as software improves over time. But the TIFF is the simplest and safest for longer term storage of high quality assets, along with JPEG.

[zeitz]

On 4/5/2022 at 1:03 AM, otto.f said:

Btw, I don’t understand so much the question: I assume that your settings before converting to Tiff are kept in LR? At least that is the case for my DNG’s in CaptureOne. So if you throw away your Tiff, your settings, layers, etc. aren’t lost in LR are they?

LR, in itself, does not keep the adjustments for individual files.  In LR you have two options for the adjustments.  You can store the adjustments in the original .dng raw file or you can store the changes in a .xmp sidecar file.  (Only .xmp is available if you are using raw files that are not .dng.)  If you see a change in the date associated with the file, the changes are being stored in the .dng file.  You can see the .xmp file in whatever file folder you use (or LR creates for you); the .dng file date will not change in this case.  The versions of LR that I have used do not have layers; they only have the Adobe Camera Raw adjustments (ADR = LR Develop).  

I am far from an expert on C1.  The few Phase One .iic files that I have worked with in C1 all seem to have a .cos side car file associated with them similar to the .xmp sidecars of LR.  C1 does have layers.  I assume layers also are stored in the .cos file.

You can open both .xmp and .cos with a text editor to read the adjustment that you made.

[marchyman]

20 hours ago, zeitz said:

The few Phase One .iic files that I have worked with in C1 all seem to have a .cos side car file associated with them similar to the .xmp sidecars of LR.  C1 does have layers.  I assume layers also are stored in the .cos file.

C1 has "sessions" where info is stored in the equivalent of sidecar files and a catalog where info is stored in in the catalog.   You choose one or the other.  When using sessions he C1 equivalent to sidecar files are not kept in the same folder as the image.  They are in a sub folder of a folder named CaptureOne.  I believe layer masks are stored there, too.

[zeitz]

1 hour ago, marchyman said:

C1 has "sessions" where info is stored in the equivalent of sidecar files and a catalog where info is stored in in the catalog.

 

1 hour ago, marchyman said:

When using sessions he C1 equivalent to sidecar files are not kept in the same folder as the image.

I hated files being strewn all over my hard drive, in folders it was creating on its own, by the version of C1 that came with my Leica M8.  That's why I use Bridge and Photoshop, giving me complete control of files and folders without need for a "catalog".  I must say C1 has become an excellent image processor and in many ways is "best in class".

[otto.f]

I only work with “sessions” so my settings in photo’s of my M8 from 2008 are still there if I didn’t change them in the meantime. Yes, there may be some records of it in my Mac, but isn’t that normal with all kinds of programs? I can’t see it has any sense to hate that, it’s at the background to serve me, and it never bothered me. 

[zeitz]

6 hours ago, otto.f said:

isn’t that normal with all kinds of programs

No.

6 hours ago, otto.f said:

to hate that

I want full control of everything that goes on my drives - internal drive, Time Capsule (on a separate drive) and my two RAIDs.  I want my file structure, not some coder selected, and often hidden, file structure.  I want a file structure that is consistent over decades of computer usage.  There is no other way to manage volume size, assuming you don't have unlimited storage, when an application decides what folders it needs and where to put them.  And absolutely no cloud storage, Apple and Adobe.  So I don't use any application that creates its own folders or needs catalogs/libraries/albums.

[pgk]

39 minutes ago, zeitz said:

And absolutely no cloud storage, Apple and Adobe.  So I don't use any application that creates its own folders or needs catalogs/libraries/albums.

Mirrors my thoughts. Someone else's logic is not mine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

If a major format or its use should become obsolete there will be many years of transition, converting programs, etc. I would be more worried about the storage medium. The Cloud may be transient, SSDs or HDDs may become inoperational over the years, etc.