Editing for archiving, best practice ?

sunny2004

Ok, Need some advice.

I, like many, print my images, different sizes and post on the internet..

Now my question is regarding editing and finalising images for long term storage, I don't want to revisit them in the future,..

I want to store the maximum print size image in an archive, so when I return I just have to resize the image for whatever purpose...
How do I calculate this ? I shoot in raw.. and have files form a number of cameras..

Cheers B

Heebie

Don't upsize something to maximum image size. Save a format you think will be around a good long time (PSD, TIFF etc..)
Edit your image so the color etc.. is exactly how you like it.

Save in the format above without sharpening or resizing etc..

Store it in an archival format. (BTW.. DVD's etc.. are not truly archival.. you have to make new copies of them every several years unless you have the kit necessary to "press" them rather than burn them.)

If you're talking about printed archives.. that's going to cost you a bundle on good giclée printing on just the right papers with just the right inks... so I wouldn't bother. =O

sunny2004

Cheers for the reply,

I intend saving them as PSD and also the original raw file and maybe a Jpeg..
Storage is not an issue..

I just want to figure out what the maximum size I can make the images and at 240? 0r 300 ? or whatever... without adding any pixels or upsizing.. in other words the maximum quality and size image.... that I will downsize as required in the future.. I would love to store them at say 20 x 30 and keep those files but I don't know how to figure out the maximum size I can get out of my images...

Heebie

Don't resize them at all.. leave them exactly as they are in the RAW file.

Don't do anything with size/resolution unless you're creating a final output file with specific size & resolution requirements in mind.

If you have say.. just for simplicity's sake a RAW file of 2000x3000 pixels.

that's 20x30" @100dpi. It's also 10x15" at 200dpi, 5x7.5"@400dpi, 40x60"@50dpi. and 4x6"@500dpi

The 20x30" @100dpi could be upsampled by 3x, then sharpened and look pretty good as a print... but the resizing part you don't do until you know what you're going to be doing. As long as you've got the color & any edits done to your satisfaction.. don't worry about that bit for archival purposes... it's not really all that relavant. (Unless you're going to leave a metafile with what you consider the maximum size to be with the PSD and RAW files.)

The maximum size you can actually get is a really nebulous thing to get a handle on. If you're taking pictures with lots of thin straight lines in them.. those won't upsize nearly as well as something more organic.

I know I've seen 16x24" prints that look fantastic come off of 2MP cameras, and 24x36" prints off of 6MP without difficulty. I shoot on a 14.6MP camera now, with a 10.4MP as my backup body.. so I don't think I'll ever be printing anything where it'll be a problem.

oshead

I agree with Heebie. Don't do anything with the originals. If they are RAW files, then convert them off to Adobe's DNG format. Who knows what the future holds, but to most reckonings, DNG will be the archival format of the future. Don't bother doing any colour adjustments or anything else for that matter because the changes are not made to the RAW file itself and even if it where, the changes probably wouldn't be recognizable by another third party program.

Your main concern should be the media you use to back up on and methods of updating, storing this media and ultimately restoring images.

sunny2004

Cheers Oshead, but I am saving the RAW files, but I want to save a fully edited version of the file ready for printing as well,, hence my question about size..

So If I open the raw file I get maximum size ?

oshead

sunny2004 wrote: »

I want to save a fully edited version of the file ready for printing

Does it take long for you to do this editing. If it's hours, then all the above applies, plus just save the edited file off as a TIFF file. Don't worry about resizing now. If you are thinking about printing in say 20 years time, I'm sure there will be better ways to resize an image by then.

sunny2004 wrote: »

So If I open the raw file I get maximum size ?

I don't quite get you, You get the file size that your camera took. No bigger nor smaller.

sunny2004

oshead wrote: »

Does it take long for you to do this editing. If it's hours, then all the above applies, plus just save the edited file off as a TIFF file. Don't worry about resizing now. If you are thinking about printing in say 20 years time, I'm sure there will be better ways to resize an image by then.



I don't quite get you, You get the file size that your camera took. No bigger nor smaller.

Yes. as in the maximum size of the file without upsizing ?
In other words, I want the maximum quality at the largest size image I can get out of the file after all editing and save it,
I dont want to upsize it as in adding additional information that might allow it to be printed larger but at a reduced quality..

Heebie

sunny2004 wrote: »

Yes. as in the maximum size of the file without upsizing ?
In other words, I want the maximum quality at the largest size image I can get out of the file after all editing and save it,
I dont want to upsize it as in adding additional information that might allow it to be printed larger but at a reduced quality..

I think you're just thinking about something you don't NEED to think about.
There's no need to do anything about size. You have all the dots you need.. it doesn't matter if they're tagged as 72dpi or 4,837dpi.. it doesn't matter if the picture is tagged as 4x6", 8x12", 200x300cm.. those are literally all just tags thrown into the file that make no difference in the actual photographic data... so forget about them when it comes to archiving.

Save the RAW files as is.. and save an edited file (I wouldn't flatten it.. leave any layers you put in place etc..) of the finished colour & edits.
I would save in a 16-bit per channel format (Photoshop's PSD and PSB formats will do this, as will TIFF... if you use TIFFs it would be a good idea to make sure you note whether you're using Mac or PC byte ordering and LZW compression within the file.

but.. don't think about size.. it's not relevant for archiving.

nilhg

Heebie wrote: »

I think you're just thinking about something you don't NEED to think about.
There's no need to do anything about size. You have all the dots you need.. it doesn't matter if they're tagged as 72dpi or 4,837dpi.. it doesn't matter if the picture is tagged as 4x6", 8x12", 200x300cm.. those are literally all just tags thrown into the file that make no difference in the actual photographic data... so forget about them when it comes to archiving.

Save the RAW files as is.. and save an edited file (I wouldn't flatten it.. leave any layers you put in place etc..) of the finished colour & edits.
I would save in a 16-bit per channel format (Photoshop's PSD and PSB formats will do this, as will TIFF... if you use TIFFs it would be a good idea to make sure you note whether you're using Mac or PC byte ordering and LZW compression within the file.

but.. don't think about size.. it's not relevant for archiving.

OR if you're using Lightroom mostly you can choose to write the metadata associated with the file to it, this is done in one of two ways, if you're using the manufacturers proprietary format (CR2, NEF) then the data will be written as a .xmp sidecar file with the same name as the main RAW, you'll need to archive both of these. If you use DNG for your RAWs the metadata will be written directly into the DNG and you just need to archive that.

sunny2004

Cheers, but as I mentioned my concern is with keeping the best quality at the largest printable size after working it through fully in photoshop..

So It would seen just open it at its native size from the raw and work on it and save it as a PSD or TIFF with the original RAW file..

I am happy to store the RAW but I want a file that is fully worked on for printing purposes in the future..

Heebie

There's really no point.. but if you feel you must.. change the DPI to 240 without resampling the image. That'll give you something that's already tagged as a particular size, without changing any of the image data.

If you're talking about making a final print-prepped file at the highest good-quality print-size your camera can make.. that would be counter-productive if you're expecting technology to advance between now and the last time in history you'll ever want to make a print from the image.

If you feel you must, convert the image to an SGB color profile @240DPI without resampling it, run a reasonable sharpen on it, convert it to 8-bits per channel and save it as a lossless JPG or a TIF. (lossless JPG being quality setting of "12" or "100%".. and NOT in all photo manipulation software.. many only do the lossy jpeg formats.)

sunny2004 wrote: »

I am happy to store the RAW but I want a file that is fully worked on for printing purposes in the future..

stcstc

i would suggest not sharpening for archival, as if you want to resize later, scaling sharpening is not a good idea

smelltheglove

I save all my work images original raw plus lossless jpeg as described by Heebie. The jpeg is saved at 8x12 and 300ppi which is more than sufficient for most print jobs, if it needs to go much larger than 16x20 I'd revert to the raw file.

sunny2004

Heebie wrote: »

There's really no point.. but if you feel you must.. change the DPI to 240 without resampling the image..... .)

ok, hum,, maybe I am just a tad dense right now...
My landscaped have a lot of work in them to get them right, But I am not sure what size I will need them in the future. so I want them fully processed at the biggest size I can get ! without adding information to resize, as in resampling up ? am I making any sense.. ?

stcstc wrote: »

i would suggest not sharpening for archival, as if you want to resize later, scaling sharpening is not a good idea

good idea, had not thought of that..

Heebie

I'm saying do your processing work so that you have all your edits in place.. then save the working file, as-is, with all it's layers, masks etc... Then it has all your edits.. and you can resize it to any size you want without losing quality due to things like upsampling an already-sharpened image etc..

It's not necessary to even think about what size it will be for archival purposes if you're saving your non-flattened working file with all it's layers etc.. intact.

I agree with the other guy who said don't save sharpened-images for archival.. but if you're talking about being able to just rattle-off a print at whatever you've deemed the largest size to be.. without doing ANY work on it.. you'll probably want the saved image to be sharpened. This would cause prints at any other size/resolution to suffer.

I've been using essentially the same workflow for years. Back when I did it commercially the process was:

1.> Input (either from camera, camera card, scanner etc..) imported into Photoshop at it's highest bit-depth etc... preferably if it was a scan.. can done by ME on the equipment I'd generated colour profiles for myself, and was used to. These would be at the highest practical resolution I could work with. (which was limited by RAM on the machine, and disk space to a file size of about 400 megs for the raw 16-bit per channel scan.) I generally make sure that "RAW" appears in the filename to denote that I will never edit that file.. that becomes my "digital negative".. whether' it's a raw file from a camera, or a scan etc..

2.> COPY the original information to a file that has "WORKING" in the filename. Do all edits on this file including color, any repair or compositing work etc, in the highest bit-depth I could use. (Some functions in Photoshop were still limited to 8-bit/channel modes back then.) The first editing step is generally to convert to Kodak ProPhoto color space, as it's an enormous color space even compared to Adobe 1998.. so you have the least possible colour that is "out of gamut"

3.> When all edits are complete, SAVE the working file. (preferably having saved every few minutes during the editing process.)

4.> Load the WORKING file. Flatten, convert to sRGB color space, save as a lossless JPG with "FINAL" in the title. (This file is for previews, and for handoff to the customer for a format that an "average user's" kit will be able to handle.) Notice..there was no resizing at this stage.

5.> Load the "WORKING" file. (not the "FINAL" file) Resample the image to the desired output size. Flatten the image. Convert the image to the desired output color profile. Save as a new file with "PRINT" or "OUTPUT" in the name. Repeat for each desired output size.

6.> Load the PRINT/OUTPUT file(s) in sequence and print them, or send them to appropriate printing equipment.

7.> Burn ALL files to disc, with the "FINAL" file being the only one in the root directory of the disc. "PRINT" files in a folder called "Print_Sizes" and the RAW and WORKING files in a folder called "Working"

This gives the customer (or myself) everything necessary to reproduce an excellent result at any size, including the archiving of the image at it's "most perfect" to to speak.. which is with all the edits done, but no re-sizing, and any individual editing element still removable if desired.

For archival purposes, storing only the RAW and WORKING files is ideal.. as the other files are all optimised for current and specific printing equipment. You want the archival bit to be as generic as possible. (which, some might argue, would make saving the working file as a TIFF better than saving as a PSD/PSB.)

I hope this helps.. instead of confusing you further.

sunny2004 wrote: »

ok, hum,, maybe I am just a tad dense right now...
My landscaped have a lot of work in them to get them right, But I am not sure what size I will need them in the future. so I want them fully processed at the biggest size I can get ! without adding information to resize, as in resampling up ? am I making any sense.. ?



good idea, had not thought of that..

sunny2004

Great information as always from everyone (without exception)

RECAP lol

Accepting I simply want to fully process my images and store than for the future..

My plan now is to
Open the raw image, whatever size it defaults to, correct ?
the size the image opens up as is the maximum size without upsampling ?

Edit the file fully, then without sharpening, save the file as PSD with all layers intact..

Save the original Raw file also...

Correct? or have I missed anything ?

melekalikimaka

adobe dng converter.

but tbh why not just leave it at the raw file, unless you have a very obscure camera, your raw files arent gonna be suddenly 'unsupported'

sunny2004

melekalikimaka wrote: »

adobe dng converter.

but tbh why not just leave it at the raw file, unless you have a very obscure camera, your raw files arent gonna be suddenly 'unsupported'

Because I dont want to return and have to process the image again...

Case in point, a HDR or tone mapped image, or an image that needed a lot of photoshopping, say a portrait with a lot of skin work...

Now, if I want to print it in the future, I want to open it, resize it (downwards) if required and print it, I dont want to spent 2 or 5 hrs working on it in the future...

Hense, save the RAW and a fully worked photoshop image in PSD without sharpening...

Heebie

Yes... although you might be resizing up or down when you go to print.. you'll have everything you need all in one place without having to redo any of your editing. Whee

sunny2004 wrote: »

Great information as always from everyone (without exception)

RECAP lol

Accepting I simply want to fully process my images and store than for the future..

My plan now is to
Open the raw image, whatever size it defaults to, correct ?
the size the image opens up as is the maximum size without upsampling ?

Edit the file fully, then without sharpening, save the file as PSD with all layers intact..

Save the original Raw file also...

Correct? or have I missed anything ?

Fenster

PSD is a proprietary file format and could therefore go away in very short order. It may seem counter-intuitive but you should choose a file type and file system that are currently both ubiquitous and open: PNG, JPG and TIF are all excellent choices.

sunny2004

Fenster wrote: »

PSD is a proprietary file format and could therefore go away in very short order. It may seem counter-intuitive but you should choose a file type and file system that are currently both ubiquitous and open: PNG, JPG and TIF are all excellent choices.

in theory yes, but I cant see PSD going anywhere soon... can you ?

Fenster

If it gets superseded by a superior file-format, yes. And it will. Give the current version a half-life of ten years. Let's say Adobe release a new and superior PSD2 file format. You'd have a few years grace period. When I archive, I am talking about periods of decades.

Heebie

The problem with this is that PNG and JPG require you to flatten the image, and all three require things that are best kept as vector data to be rasterised before storage. A PSD or PSB file will keep all the data intact, and keep vector data as vectors instead of converting it to rasterised.. so that if at any point the image is resized.. anything stored as vectors scales without distortion. (this would include layer masks, any text overlays etc..)
I think there is an XML-based format for Gimp that could be used.. but I think it's more likely that PSD and PSB will still be widely used 20 years from now than for Gimp's default to have come into wide use. (I think it's .XCF)

I don't know of any non-proprietary file formats that are as flexible for photographic and related data than PSD/PSB... and I don't foresee not having Photoshop, or something intelligent enough to read Photoshop files for some time. Photoshop has been around since at least the early 1990's.. I remember using it back in around 1992-1993. It's vanishing entirely just seems highly unlikely.

Fenster wrote: »

PSD is a proprietary file format and could therefore go away in very short order. It may seem counter-intuitive but you should choose a file type and file system that are currently both ubiquitous and open: PNG, JPG and TIF are all excellent choices.

Heebie

They've done that already.. PSB. (I think it's also known as "large file format")

Fenster wrote: »

If it gets superseded by a superior file-format, yes. And it will. Give the current version a half-life of ten years. Let's say Adobe release a new and superior PSD2 file format. You'd have a few years grace period. When I archive, I am talking about periods of decades.

Fenster

So they are superior for editing. Not necessarily for archiving. PSB obsoletes PSD. Something obsoletes PSB. Etc. If you are archiving long-term you need to ensure the files will still be readable a few decades down the road.

magicbastarder

Heebie wrote: »

The problem with this is that PNG and JPG require you to flatten the image, and all three require things that are best kept as vector data to be rasterised before storage. A PSD or PSB file will keep all the data intact, and keep vector data as vectors instead of converting it to rasterised.. so that if at any point the image is resized.. anything stored as vectors scales without distortion. (this would include layer masks, any text overlays etc..)

jaysus, too much work. i don't want to have to be second guessing myself about processing today's shots in 20 years time, i'll be more than pissed off with the amount of processing i have to do on the stuff i'm taking then anyway.

save everything as tiff, LZW compression. works for me.

Heebie

magicbastarder wrote: »

jaysus, too much work. i don't want to have to be second guessing myself about processing today's shots in 20 years time, i'll be more than pissed off with the amount of processing i have to do on the stuff i'm taking then anyway.

save everything as tiff, LZW compression. works for me.

That does work.. but any masks etc.. will be rasterized (no longer vector data) as will any text... so if you resize them.. they will be less smooth.

It's also a good idea to make sure you remember which byte order you're using..

magicbastarder

i don't think i've any images with text in them.