[mr_rsu]

I've been scanning and saving a lot of old photos into digital format and will burn them into CDs and DVDs made of gold-reflective layers (gold-reflective layered CD is good up to 300 years, DVD up to 100 years).
I am wondering what is the best saving format before burning the scanned photos into those CD or DVD: Adobe Photoshop document, JPEG or TIFF? I wanted to preserve the data within those scanned photos for long-term archives and would be readable and usable in the future.
At least until newer memory storage and file-readable technology will improve exponentially the next couple decades for archiving photos, videos, files, etc. long-term.
Would appreciate your feedback.
Merry Christmas to y'all, by the way.

[radnuf]

Quote:

---

I am wondering what is the best saving format before burning the scanned photos into those CD or DVD: Adobe Photoshop document, JPEG or TIFF? I wanted to preserve the data within those scanned photos for long-term archives and would be readable and usable in the future.

---

TIFF saves all the digital data. JPEG reduces digital data somehow. While data can be embedded in photos, only the software can then retrieve the data.
You didn't mention what kind of photos so I'll tell you about my family project.I scanned family photos as TIFFs with its large file sizes then I reduced them to JPEGs and saved both copies on two sets of DVDs since that is a lot of data to trust to just one copy. If you want to be on the safe side, copy your computer operating system and photo editing software on a DVD and/or hard drive to store with the images so you or your family can be sure of retrieving them later. At a recent reunion I had the family sit down and go through all the photos and provide information into a database about who is in the photo, the approximate date and location of the photo, background other than people in the photo (antiques and favorite items), who has a hard copy of the photo and cross indexed it with the actual DVDs. While I was at it, I didn't just do photos. I copied birth certificates, marriage documents, birth and death records, titles and deeds to the old homestead, military records and newspaper stories about the family. While everybody was doing that I made everyone a slide show disk of all the images. Since I had my family handy at the reunion for photos, I started up a round of talks about the good old days and got it all on video/audio digital tape too.
Hope this helps. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Philbert]

I would save as TIFF using either LZW or ZIP compression (both are non-lossy). This will create the smallest file size while still retaining all the image data.
As an example, here are the different file sizes for various formats from a Canon 17MP camera.
RAW - 14 MB
JPEG - 10.5 MB (highest quality - least compression)
TIFF - 23.9 MB (LZW compression)
TIFF - 21.6 MB (ZIP compression)
PSD - 43.5 MB
My feeling is that a compressed TIFF file is a good size compromise between JPEG and PSD.
Also, it's a bad idea to rely solely on optical media (gold or otherwise) for archiving. The safe thing is to archive on both optical media and magnetic hard drives. Multiple copies (redundancy), is the only true way to ensure your files are safe - ideally, in several locations.
Oh, yeah ... Merry Christmas! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mr_rsu]

wow, thank you, radnuf. That was quite a huge task you just did.
I thought TIFF is the best way to go with but wanted to see the pros and cons of TIF vs JPEG or Adobe Photoshop document.
I wonder how JPEG can reduces digital data significantly?

[mr_rsu]

Quote:

---

I would save as TIFF using either LZW or ZIP compression (both are non-lossy). This will create the smallest file size while still retaining all the image data.
As an example, here are the different file sizes for various formats from a Canon 17MP camera.
RAW - 14 MB
JPEG - 10.5 MB (highest quality - least compression)
TIFF - 23.9 MB (LZW compression)
TIFF - 21.6 MB (ZIP compression)
PSD - 43.5 MB
My feeling is that a compressed TIFF file is a good size compromise between JPEG and PSD.
Also, it's a bad idea to rely solely on optical media (gold or otherwise) for archiving. The safe thing is to archive on both optical media and magnetic hard drives. Multiple copies (redundancy), is the only true way to ensure your files are safe - ideally, in several locations.
Oh, yeah ... Merry Christmas! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

---

Thanks, Philbert. I have a Nikon Coolpix L4 camera. It's a good digital camera but affordable enough for me. It outputs only JPEG format, so I would have to re-format all the pics from JPEG to TIF. Same with the scanned non-digital photos (all saved in either PSD or JPEG).
I read in a computer tech article that gold-reflective layered CD or DVD is the best way to preserve digital data for long-term storage and archive. The brand I bought is Memorex. Very reputable. I still have old Memorex CD-ROMs from 1998 and upward, still read good.

[bruine]

Quote:

---

I have a Nikon Coolpix L4 camera. It's a good digital camera but affordable enough for me. It outputs only JPEG format, so I would have to re-format all the pics from JPEG to TIF

---

Not much use to convert JPEG to Tiff. The idea of using TIFF is to keep all the information you have for the image. But if it's already in JPEG, you won't get more info in transferring to TIFF (in fact, you will be creating info, but by extrapoling from the compressed info) and you will increase the file size. Just avoid converting from one format and coming back to JPEG, each time you do that, you lose a little info. Try to keep the original file for the backup (and a well supported format as JPEG, TIFF, etc...)

[radnuf]

You're welcome mr[u]rsu. Actually the project was a lot of fun, not work at all. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[dcpics]

Quote:

---

I wonder how JPEG can reduces digital data significantly?

---

Just saving as JPEG once will not reduce it significantly but there is data loss, and then every subsequent save as a JPEG will reduce data a little more each time.
A rough (very rough) idea of what JPEG compression does is this:
The file is analyzed and similar tones/shades/details next to each other are grouped together to save space.
So in a very busy, multi-colored picture such as a stained-glass window there would be too much changing detail and when you save it you will get a larger file and less data loss.
On an image that has a lot of blue sky in it, when saving the compression program will look at it and say: from pixel 1 to pixel 30 their is not much change in shade/tone/detail so all those get assigned in one group as a single shade/tone. Then pixels 31-40 are close so those get grouped together.
This grouping of data results in a smaller file when you save it. Good for storage but as you can see, some data may get lost.
Then the next time you open and save those two groups may be close enough in data that they all get grouped so now pixels 1-40 are all one group -- another loss in a touch of detail and data. Changes are subtle but more and more saves may result in the image starting to look weird.
So if you are just going to save the image for posterity then JPEG is not too bad of an option, but if you are planning on working on the image alot, especially if you are doing a project where maybe you are creating lots of layers and doing tone changes, color changes etc, then keeping TIFF or PS formats are better as you don't lose that data.

[radnuf]

Quote:

---

keeping TIFF or PS formats are better as you don't lose that data.

---

Yes, if you start with TIFF when scanning or shooting.
In his case he starts with JPEG - which shouldn't be converted to TIFF. Once he works the JPEG with Photoshop, then converting to PS format saves external PS data to take advantage of PS features - it doesn't help the image, just the PS features.
I too archive images in JPEG but I also archive TIFFs if that is what I started with.
The key is to decide first on the use of the image and then create digital files that will enable that use, don't you think? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Philbert]

Quote:

---

In his case he starts with JPEG ...

---

His original question was about which file to save scanned images. He only mentioned camera jpegs after we gave our suggestions. Naturally, if you have no choice but to create an image as a jpeg, you might as well store them that way. However, what dcpics is suggesting, is that if those jpegs are altered, to save them in PSD or TIFF. I would agree with that.

Quote:

---

I read in a computer tech article that gold-reflective layered CD or DVD is the best way to preserve digital data for long-term storage and archive.

---

I recently sat in on a lecture where the speaker was the archivist for a large university. He goes on about using the very best gold media, ph and climate controlled rooms, painstaking and detailed storage methods, etc. I asked if doing all that was any kind of a guarantee that the information was safe. "No", was the reply. He said they occasionally DO run across a disc that can't be read and that having mulitple copies on multiple media is the safest storage strategy.

[radnuf]

I agree with all of your points Philbert. Didn't mean to seem not to agree. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Scans can be either JPEG or TIFF. Altered images can be saved in a variety of formats. If all he has is JPEG, stay with JPEG.
Archiving as multiple copies on multiple media is best. I probably should make sure all my CDs/DVDs of family pix will open since it has been several years since they were created. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mr_rsu]

A big thank you all for the very helpful and insightful information! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I can goes with JPEG on digital photos and TIFF on scanned images, since I don't wanted to lose any data from scanned images that were saved digitally.
I ran a test comparison of a scanned image in .TIF and .JPEG formats. I noticed a big difference between the two upon closer, zoomed-in look. In TIF, pixelized data is smoother and loss-less, whereas in JPEG, the image is heavily pixelized - blocks of various shades of color - no smooth look. Big difference!
Hey, I have another question - about saving important documents scanned and saved digitally (like birth certificates, letters, tax forms, etc. etc). Would saving them as PDF instead of TIF, JPEG or EPS be recommended?
Thanks! Happy New Year to y'all,

[radnuf]

Quote:

---

I have another question - about saving important documents scanned and saved digitally (like birth certificates, letters, tax forms, etc. etc). Would saving them as PDF instead of TIF, JPEG or EPS be recommended?

---

PDF doesn't have resolution. The image inside it does.
Check Adobe's site here and here for more.
HTH /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif