Two questions, same subject:

How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files? Do you leave them in the
native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP? Moreover, do you leave them in
the original 16-bit, or convert them to 8-bit to save space?

-Robert Ades

Robert A wrote:
> Two questions, same subject:
>
> How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files? Do you leave them
> in the native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP? Moreover, do you
> leave them in the original 16-bit, or convert them to 8-bit to save
> space?

Robert,

CD's and hard drive space are cheap. Archive your original raw scans, and
save your corrected images as well on the same disk. The amount of work
required to do each scan is much more important than the amount of storage
required.

If you have so many scanned images that the number of CD's is oppressive,
either switch to DvD, or consider saving as 8 bit tiff.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Mike, my 4000-dpi 16-bit scans take up more than 100Mb each. Normally when
working in Photoshop, I convert to 8-bit right away. The reason I scan in
16-bit is for greater dynamic range and shadow detail. Once the scan is
done, is there any useful reason to keep that 16-bit data?

-Robert


"Mike Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AQZbc.32538$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Robert A wrote:
> > Two questions, same subject:
> >
> > How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files? Do you leave them
> > in the native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP? Moreover, do you
> > leave them in the original 16-bit, or convert them to 8-bit to save
> > space?
>
> Robert,
>
> CD's and hard drive space are cheap. Archive your original raw scans, and
> save your corrected images as well on the same disk. The amount of work
> required to do each scan is much more important than the amount of storage
> required.
>
> If you have so many scanned images that the number of CD's is oppressive,
> either switch to DvD, or consider saving as 8 bit tiff.
> --
>
> Mike Russell
> www.curvemeister.com
> www.geigy.2y.net
>
>

Robert A wrote:
> Mike, my 4000-dpi 16-bit scans take up more than 100Mb each.
> Normally when working in Photoshop, I convert to 8-bit right away.
> The reason I scan in 16-bit is for greater dynamic range and shadow
> detail. Once the scan is done, is there any useful reason to keep
> that 16-bit data?

Are you scanning medium format? I wonder if you are getting any additional
resolution over, say, a 25 or 50 meg scan. Have you experimented and can
you see the difference on your prints? You may even be losing sharpness by
scanning at too high a resolution. Scanning at a high resolution introduces
softness, which you must then compensate for by sharpening.

But back to your question. Volumes have been written on the topic of 8 bits
versus 16, and I have contributed some bulk to that discussion.

My personal conclusion is that 8 bits per channel is plenty for today's
technology, and the evidence I offer is that (for a gamma 1.8 or greater
image) it is impossible to tell by looking, and looking, after all, is what
we do with photographs.

But there are those for whom that argument is not convincing, and the act of
throwing away any image data is not something they can justify. Whether I
agree with the technical reasons for this extra data, I have to say many of
these people do create better photographs and prints than I do.

So, pick which side of the fence you want to be on. Above all keep your
originals in a safe place - scanners can only continue to get better and
better.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Robert A wrote:
> Two questions, same subject:
>
> How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files? Do you leave them in the
> native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP? Moreover, do you leave them in
> the original 16-bit, or convert them to 8-bit to save space?

If you prefer discard critical color information, reduce them to 8 bit.

Uni


>
> -Robert Ades
>
>

"Robert A" wrote: "How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files?
Do you leave them in the native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP?
Moreover, do you leave them in the original 16-bit, or convert them to
8-bit to save space?"
-----------------------

I archive 3800x2700-pixel color-corrected images as level-6-quality
(Photoshop) jpeg's. Notwithstanding the current cost of disk space, the
benefit of 95% smaller files (1MB vs. 25MB; 600+ images per CD vs. ~25
images per CD) makes it an easy decision for me. As for "quality" issues
of jpeg's, I don't believe the differences in jpeg's and tiff's is
noticeable at any normal resolution. As for going back to the images to
"improve" them in the future, I'm sure scanners will improve in the
future such that I'll be re-scanning the originals to get significantly
better quality.

For "commercial" images, there may be good reasons to save tiff's, but
for personal images, particularly when there are thousands of them, the
benefits of jpeg's are significant.

There is no visible difference in 8-bit and 16-bit color-corrected
images, so why waste half your disk space?

Preston Earle
(E-Mail Removed)

I'm scanning 35mm. I scan based on the intended print size, so for 13x19, I
use 4000 dpi, for smaller prints, I adjust accordingly. I always scan at
16-bit (actually 14-bit with my Canon FS4000US) to a TIFF file.

Once in Photoshop, I adjust levels in 16-bit if necessary, then convert to
8-bit and make all the remaining adjustments for final output in a PSP file.
I know that my Epson 2200 printer only utilitizes 8-bits/channel, so I see
no point in preserving 16-bit data for current prints. But I still retain
the original TIFF file in 16-bit, unretouched or modified in Photoshop for
later archive.

My understanding is that it's important to SCAN in the highest bit depth as
possible, but once you have the file in your computer, there's little if any
use for the extra bits in terms of archiving. Is there any general
agreement on this?

Robert Ades


"Mike Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:sX_bc.32629$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Robert A wrote:
> > Mike, my 4000-dpi 16-bit scans take up more than 100Mb each.
> > Normally when working in Photoshop, I convert to 8-bit right away.
> > The reason I scan in 16-bit is for greater dynamic range and shadow
> > detail. Once the scan is done, is there any useful reason to keep
> > that 16-bit data?
>
> Are you scanning medium format? I wonder if you are getting any
additional
> resolution over, say, a 25 or 50 meg scan. Have you experimented and can
> you see the difference on your prints? You may even be losing sharpness
by
> scanning at too high a resolution. Scanning at a high resolution
introduces
> softness, which you must then compensate for by sharpening.
>
> But back to your question. Volumes have been written on the topic of 8
bits
> versus 16, and I have contributed some bulk to that discussion.
>
> My personal conclusion is that 8 bits per channel is plenty for today's
> technology, and the evidence I offer is that (for a gamma 1.8 or greater
> image) it is impossible to tell by looking, and looking, after all, is
what
> we do with photographs.
>
> But there are those for whom that argument is not convincing, and the act
of
> throwing away any image data is not something they can justify. Whether I
> agree with the technical reasons for this extra data, I have to say many
of
> these people do create better photographs and prints than I do.
>
> So, pick which side of the fence you want to be on. Above all keep your
> originals in a safe place - scanners can only continue to get better and
> better.
> --
>
> Mike Russell
> www.curvemeister.com
> www.geigy.2y.net
>
>

In article <WMadnc48HMDEwO3dRVn-(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert A
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Two questions, same subject:
>
>How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files? Do you leave them in the
>native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP? Moreover, do you leave them in
>the original 16-bit, or convert them to 8-bit to save space?
>
Certainly don't even consider PSP as an archive format, it is a
proprietary coding scheme which may not be supported in the future. TIFF
is an open coding scheme which is supported by virtually all image
processing applications and will not only continue to be supported but
continue to develop.

The 16/8-bpc argument continues, but I have yet to see any evidence in
favour of 16bpc archiving, despite Dan Margulis issuing and open
challenge for anyone to demonstrate an image which could be achieved in
16bpc processing which could not also be achieved in 8bpc processing
over three years ago. Given that failure, the generally accepted
principle is to scan in 16bpc, or the greatest available bit depth of
the scanner, optimise the image in terms of gamma and levels before
archiving in 8bpc format.

No doubt such sacrilegious advice will solicit much consternation and
opposing views amongst the collective. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article <sX_bc.32629$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike
Russell <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>Scanning at a high resolution introduces
>softness, which you must then compensate for by sharpening.
>
On what equipment are you experiencing this particular kind of madness.
Scanning at an increased sampling density may not offer any more
resolution in the image, but it certainly cannot make it any less sharp
or softer!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Thank you.

"Preston Earle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:U52cc.20722$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Robert A" wrote: "How do you permanently archive your Vuescan files?
> Do you leave them in the native TIFF format, or convert them to PSP?
> Moreover, do you leave them in the original 16-bit, or convert them to
> 8-bit to save space?"
> -----------------------
>
> I archive 3800x2700-pixel color-corrected images as level-6-quality
> (Photoshop) jpeg's. Notwithstanding the current cost of disk space, the
> benefit of 95% smaller files (1MB vs. 25MB; 600+ images per CD vs. ~25
> images per CD) makes it an easy decision for me. As for "quality" issues
> of jpeg's, I don't believe the differences in jpeg's and tiff's is
> noticeable at any normal resolution. As for going back to the images to
> "improve" them in the future, I'm sure scanners will improve in the
> future such that I'll be re-scanning the originals to get significantly
> better quality.
>
> For "commercial" images, there may be good reasons to save tiff's, but
> for personal images, particularly when there are thousands of them, the
> benefits of jpeg's are significant.
>
> There is no visible difference in 8-bit and 16-bit color-corrected
> images, so why waste half your disk space?
>
> Preston Earle
> (E-Mail Removed)
>