leoskats

So Owenr you think that TIFF 32 bit is unnecessary. Also between TIFF 16 bit vs PNG 48 bit: what is better in terms of quality? Or both files are the same because they have the same lossless compression?!?!

Thank you very much!!

Hello guys. Hope you're good. I just make an edit in Affinity photo one raw image file and export it as a TIFF File. I discover that there is an option in "More" that has TIFF 32 bit. What that means? I export it but when I try to open this 32 bit TIFF i can see only black and some purple lines (probably there is a problem). I make edits in order to upload the pictures in internet and usually use the PNG-48 image file: does a TIFF 32 bit differs from a PNG-48 in terms of quality? Thanks.

Thank you guys for your valuable help! I find the image formats a very confusing topic that’s why I ask and ask! Yes I understood that AP supports PNG-48: the point is that quality and i mean only pixels and information of the image do not change between TIFF and PNG - the result is the same. I don’t talk about the size or the compression method that each form follows, but only for the visuality! Have a nice day!

Guys hello again! So why a 16 bit color depth file that exported as a TIFF has bigger size than one that been exported as a PNG? Does PNG or TIFF differs in quality pixels or it's just for web and print respectively? Thanks.

Okay yes I understood. Also another point is that lossless compression is lossless compression. Every image format that supports lossless compression is the equal with another image format with lossless compression. The quality is the same in every lossless image format. Now what you will choose is something very special and based on your needs each time.

Hello! Firstly I want to say a big thank you for your effort and your big explanation! Yes I totally AGREE with you that this article challenges even lossless compression and with no point. If you do have a lossless compression then you successfully have all the information of the image but in a logical image’s size. I don’t see why to go through with a TIFF uncompressed when you can have the very same image’s result with PNG in terms of quality. We all know that TIFF in web supported only by safari and not by social networks as Instagram. PNG is even more web friendly and Instagram supports it too... I found such articles too much and I’m confused when I read them

Oh okay really thanks! Because there is a misleading between PNG and TIFF and I read articles like this and I’m like what image format is better or not? Sorry for my questions, i’m amateur!

Oh okay! Yes I confuse them but okay I think now I understood. Between TIFF and PNG when both image files support 16 bits per channel then it’s better to go with png for web reasons and storage. The lossless compression is the same in terms of photo quality in both images... also when a file is smaller, do I lose something or not?

Hello guys. Can I ask you a question? Lossless compression (TIFF, PNG) does affect only the image’a size and not the quality, right? So an edited and exported Image, as a PNG or TIFF (with 16 bits color depth), has the same quality with all the information of the original image?! I ask this because I want to maintain my images in perfect quality in my storage but simultaneously to upload images in web in perfect quality. Is it safer and better to go with PNG (24 bit) or TIFF? ps: I don’t mind about the large files, I got storage. I need an advice about the formats and if the image quality between those two formats differs! Thanks a lot guys in advance

Guys me again! I edit a RAW photo with my lovely Affinity App. Then, I export it as a PNG - 24. In "more" section there is a plethora to choose, between RGB 8 / RGB 16 etc. I leave it as normal and then I reopen my PNG in my Affinity. The information in the image was 16 bits color depth. So you're right about the 16 bits, there is a lot of misleading about the possibilities of a PNG - 24 in internet. Thus guys PNG 24 bit is better to use in internet for web reasons than TIFF. It's more web friendly. :) Thanks!

oh so it's better to use a PNG guys... I didn't know that Affinity's PNG can support 16 bits colors, that's why I was using TIFF for so long time

Oh you did a very good work, really thank you ! Can I ask you some questions about your experiment? Firstly what bpc means? As I can see the result is lossless and 16 bpc, why in internet all time I read that PNG-24 supports only 8 bits - here in your experiment I see that Affinity saves the photo in 16 bits as the TIFF do... At the end, which file is better: TIFF or PNG when you have the same color depth? TIFF I read that it's better for print and it's not that web friendly - PNG is lossless too and if Affinity supports 16 bits for edited RAWS then it's the most compatible for web reasons?!?! Both image's formats have a lossless compression in order to load quicker in internet but not to lose information (every bite stays clear and crystal). Thanks for your help and your time you spend for us

Oh I didn’t know. Really now? So you mean when I edit a RAW that it’s in 16 bit color depth and export it as a png - 24 the color depth stays again in 16 and not degraded in 8? How can you know such thing? Thanks for the information. I have used TIFF than png for this reason...

Hm? What do you mean by this? Theoretically, I know that PNG - 24 supports 8 bit color depth... Doesn’t that apply in Affinity PNG’s export?