The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

archving 35mm in tiff or highest jpg?

gooomz

Member
i thought i should choose tiff but the shop i was going to use to archive my entire 35mm library says most pros choose the highest jpg format since the difference in real life is so so so small. the jpg file at 3000dpi would be like a 5-7mb file where is the tiff 3000dpi would be a 40-50mb file.

what should i do?


any help in this will be appreciated.


thanks
angelo.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
i thought i should choose tiff but the shop i was going to use to archive my entire 35mm library says most pros choose the highest jpg format since the difference in real life is so so so small. the jpg file at 3000dpi would be like a 5-7mb file where is the tiff 3000dpi would be a 40-50mb file.
If you're talking about 8-bit TIFFs, I agree with the shop: full resolution and maximum quality JPEGs are virtually indistinguishable from 8-bit TIFFs of the same image, with or without either LZW or Zip compression applied. If your archives are intended to be finished work with little need for future editing, either do as well and JPEGs are more space efficient.

However, I archive in full resolution 16-bit TIFF format with Zip compression. That retains a lot more tonal data for future editing work, but file sizes are in the 20-40 Mbyte range for 12 Mpixel digital captures. 12 Mpixel film scans (that's about what a 2900 ppi scan from 35mm full frame negative amounts to) don't compress quite as well as digital captures due to grain and other noise, so expect sizings in the 30-50 range for color work.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Everything for me is stored in 16Bit High Rez Tif with ProPhoto color space. Maximum output I can produce is stored. Than work from there with save as for other medium. My files are typical 220mgs from my P40+ back.
 

gooomz

Member
not going to do too much editing to any of my archived photos but if i decide to enlarge them to say 24x36 will i notice a difference then between highest jpg or a 16bit tiff file?

they say the highest jpg scans yeild like a 5-7mb file and the highest tiff file yeilds a 40-50mb file both scanned at 4000dpi.

i want to store my images right and only once.


thanks for all the help.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
not going to do too much editing to any of my archived photos but if i decide to enlarge them to say 24x36 will i notice a difference then between highest jpg or a 16bit tiff file?

they say the highest jpg scans yeild like a 5-7mb file and the highest tiff file yeilds a 40-50mb file both scanned at 4000dpi.

i want to store my images right and only once.
The most data is almost always the best way to archive if you are looking for maximum flexibility and quality in the future. As both Guy and I said, that's 16-bit TIFF with ProPhoto RGB color space (usually with Zip compression these days as well).

How well a max quality JPEG image will print to an enlarged size depends on how critical you are and how good the JPEG is. It's unanswerable without much more specific info just how different that would be to an archive TIFF file as described above.
 

pfigen

Member
You wouldn't see any difference in resolution or overall tonality, but there's a real possibility that a saturated gradated sky could have problems printing from a jpeg that would not be there from a 16 bpc tiff, particularly when printing to a process where the act of profile conversion puts a large tweak on the file, and almost certainly for any type of CMYK offset printing. Storage is so inexpensive these days that saving as jpeg is sort of false savings.
 

gooomz

Member
i think i am going to go with tiff 8bit for my archiving my big library.

archiving at 16bit tiff would cost a lot more and i have a 300+ rolls to archive so it adds up.

i know its hard to answer but do you guys think the 8bit tiff is a pretty good archiving format?
the shop says they do a lot of archiving for pros and they say most pros are happy with the 8bit tiff at 4000dpi.


btw any recommendations for a great inexpensive place to do my archiving would be appreciated.

thanks again for all the help
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I archive at max bit depth and finished size.
with disk drives so cheap I don'r see a reason not to.
The cheapest archive location I have found is:
1) A set of disk drives at a friend's house.
2) a safe deposit box and a set of disk drives.
For belt and suspenders, use both.
-bob
 

gooomz

Member
i know disk space is so cheap but when you are paying to scan per 35mm slide or 35mm negative to be scanned at 4000dpi that is the expensive part x 300+ rolls of film.

to scan and save at 16bit tiff as opposed to 8bit tiff would cost about 40% more so that is my dilemma.

i dont do much editing to my photos anyway so not sure if 8bit would suffice.
 

Jeremy

New member
I'm with Bob and pfigen as it is a false savings to not save the 16bit file. Who cares what "most pros are happy with" - you could also argue most pros have professional capture within the limits of their output medium so they don't have to worry about dropping to 8-bit. 16-bit files gives you the headroom to do what you want with the files--are all of your exposures professional captures? Mine aren't and I enjoy the 16-bit safety net for those great shots that need a little more help.

Based off of 300 rolls of 36 exposure film and based off your info that "the highest tiff file yeilds a 40-50mb file" we're looking at:

300roll x 36 exposures = 10,800 individual frames

To make sure we're not undercutting, let's go 350 rolls.

350 rolls x 36 exposures = 12,600 frames

12,600 frames x 50mB/frame = 630,000mB

It seems like a lot, but:
16bit: 630,000mB * (1gB/1024mB) = ~615gB

3x 750gB Western Digital Green hard drives at Newegg.com are $65 each today, or $195. (one at the house, someone else's house, safety deposit box like Bob suggested)

If the price difference is 40% we're talking about a saving of less than $100 and that's if you bought all 3 hard drives today--storage will only get cheaper! I don't know anything about you or your photography, Angelo, but I am going to say your photography and piece of mind is worth that ~$100 if you're going to take the time to do the scans in the first place.

That's my recommendation based on wanting "to store your images right and only once".
 
Last edited:

gooomz

Member
the hard drive cost is not my concern, it is the cost to have a service scan each of my slides and negatives:

16bit tiff for 300 rolls would cost me approx 60cents a scan x 10,800 scans= $5940.

8bit tiffs would cost approx .40cents x 10,800= $4320.


appox $1700 is the difference.
 

pfigen

Member
I have a hard time believing you'd actually need or even want every single frame scanned. Having spent the last dozen years operating a drum scanner for fun and profit, I go through waves of scans, scanning what I need or want at the time.

If I had a lot of scans to do I'd certainly buy my own scanner. After the initial learning curve has been mastered, you'll be making better scans than you'd ever get commercially but would have to spend the time doing it.

I've never understood why scanning services charge more for 16 bit output. I know on my drum scanner, the only difference is the file size. The scanning time is identical, as the scanner scans in 16 bit no matter what and the software is what downsamples it.

I guess if I were sending out for sixty cent scans, I'd like to know what you're getting for that low price, and is there really a difference on whatever scanner they're using, between 16 and 8 bit. I know I'd be very leery of any scan that cheap.
 

gooomz

Member
if i was to scan at 16bit the shop says the files would be 120mb+ in size.

on a new imac i5 with 16gb ram, will i be able to thumb through my archive effortlessly in the thumbnail veiwer of aperture 3 or will there be a lot of slowdown due to the shear size of these files?

not sure if these 100mb+ files are difficult to work with since honestly i don't think i ever opened a 100mb file.

thanks again

happy easter everybody.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
if i was to scan at 16bit the shop says the files would be 120mb+ in size.

on a new imac i5 with 16gb ram, will i be able to thumb through my archive effortlessly in the thumbnail veiwer of aperture 3 or will there be a lot of slowdown due to the shear size of these files?

not sure if these 100mb+ files are difficult to work with since honestly i don't think i ever opened a 100mb file.
All depend on what you define to be "effortless". 100Mb image files means a computer will be working hard no matter what.
 

lance_schad

Workshop Member
Any good recommendations on where to get a few thousand 35mm negs scanned?
There are many quality services out there. One that I have particular experience with is www.fotobridge.com .

I have used them for a few projects. One that was quite large that consisted of about 13,000 slides, 12,000 prints and many hours of 8mm film and a variety of types of video tapes.
They handled this job professionally and with excellent quality. Everything was returned on hard drives and also the originals were repackaged very nicely.

They are based here in the United States in New Jersey and all work is performed at their facility and not shipped overseas.

Take a look at their website and give a call over to Julie if you have any questions. She is one of the owners.

Lance
 
Last edited:

Jeremy

New member
on a new imac i5 with 16gb ram, will i be able to thumb through my archive effortlessly in the thumbnail veiwer of aperture 3 or will there be a lot of slowdown due to the shear size of these files?/QUOTE]

I've never used Aperture 3, but I use Lightroom 3 with film scans--some in the 1.5+gB range and don't have any problems. Where you will have slow down is in the creation of the library and during export--just make sure and create 1:1 preview jpegs of all of the images ahead of time and you shouldn't have any problems (this is assuming Aperture 3 functions as a database program like LR3).
 
Top