Skip to main content
C
CVHManchester
Inspiring
November 3, 2016
Question

Rotate 48 bit TIFF files*

  • November 3, 2016
  • 1 reply
  • 4489 views

I am scanning a collection of ca 1500 prints using TIFF at 48 bit depth, each file being ca 819 MB. The scanner imports the the images as portrait, but most need to be rotated to landscape.

When trying to rotate these images using Organiser, this gives an error and says that the images will be reduced to 8 bit.

I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements Version: 14.1 (20151206.m.83730)  x64, Operating System: Windows 10 64-bit, 10 GB free memory.

Can I do a simple rotate in Photoshop without any modification of the internal content. just a transformation of the pixel coordinates?

Thank you

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    1 reply

    Jeff Arola
    Community Expert
    Jeff ArolaCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    November 3, 2016

    It seems silly to me that the organizer insists on converting the perfectly good 16 bits/channel (48 bit) tifs to 8 bits/channel just to rotate an image 90 degrees left or right, but unfortunately that's the way it is.

    Anyway, you can open the tifs in the pse 14 editor and rotate them by going to Image>Rotate>90° right or 90° left, then File>Save and overwright the existing tiff file.

    C
    CVHManchesterAuthor
    Inspiring
    November 3, 2016

    Thank you for the prompt confirmation of what I did not want to hear.

    When I tried your method using process multiple files, it opens each file taking about 90 seconds each.  I started with a sample directory of 20 of my files and gave up waiting.  I did not get as far as rotating, then saving them.

    Do you know of any image manipulation software that can do what I need in an economical manner?

    MichelBParis
    MichelBParis
    Legend
    November 5, 2016

    Thank you for making me think through my assumptions and responses.

    You are right, I do not need to rotate the originals to archive them. But being put into their natural orientation, they are much more easily sorted and understood.  I just thought it would be easy, and am surprised that it isn't. As Photoshop prides itself as being an editor for 16 bit depth images, I assumed that Organiser would be compatible.  The fact that Microsoft File Explorer can do this easily (although it then adds a redundant "compression") shows that Organiser could do it easily if Adobe wanted to.  I may have misunderstood the role of Organiser. I thought it would allow me to organise the files in the folder, not just in the Organiser window.

    The optical density range of the radiographs I mentioned was far greater than the 8 bit depth.  Given the technology available then, and now, it was impossible to view this range directly from a scanned image. But the failure to record the range meant that one could not choose to look at the significant detail at the extremes of that range.  The Epson scanner I currently have access to has only about 12-13 bit depth.

    My project, just beginning, is not to view images of original objects, but to compare them in order to identify their differences. So far my tests have shown that differences are just visible at 600 dpi, fully visible at 1200 dpi, and no more significant information at 2400 dpi.  As a novice, I have not yet been able to do tweak the software to make the comparison at different bit depths. I suspect that there will be differences in the very heavily inked areas of the objects, where all detail is merged at 8 bit depth.  But it may be some time before this hypothesis is tested, and perhaps not by me, when it will no longer be possible to re-scan the originals.


    You are right, I do not need to rotate the originals to archive them. But being put into their natural orientation, they are much more easily sorted and understood.

    Yes, and the answer is to use the organizer for visual browsing as well as sorting and tagging as explained above.

    As Photoshop prides itself as being an editor for 16 bit depth images, I assumed that Organiser would be compatible.

    No, that has always be the case, and Adobe always made clear that such features are reserved to the big brother Photoshop, not Elements. That said, 16-bits support in Elements is more than adequate if you understand when it's useful to do it.

    FAQ: Why is Photoshop Elements cheaper? What's different about Photoshop?

    I may have misunderstood the role of Organiser. I thought it would allow me to organise the files in the folder, not just in the Organiser window.

    The optical density range of the radiographs I mentioned was far greater than the 8 bit depth.  Given the technology available then, and now, it was impossible to view this range directly from a scanned image. But the failure to record the range meant that one could not choose to look at the significant detail at the extremes of that range.  The Epson scanner I currently have access to has only about 12-13 bit depth.

    The organizer can organise the files in your folders too. For instance in your case you could store your original tiffs on an external drive or network and your 'custom previews' in your main computer. Just note that using the tags, categories, albums, stacks or version sets is much more powerful than struggling with folders/Drives structure.

    The optical density range of the radiographs I mentioned was far greater than the 8 bit depth.  Given the technology available then, and now, it was impossible to view this range directly from a scanned image. But the failure to record the range meant that one could not choose to look at the significant detail at the extremes of that range.  The Epson scanner I currently have access to has only about 12-13 bit depth.

    There is a confusion here about bit depth. It does not relate to the tonal 'range', it relates to the number of steps in the same range. To keep it short, let's assume that the tonal range or the scanned image is very short, and that you want a wider, more realistic range; then you'll need enough steps to avoid showing posterization and allow tweaking in the editor. Your scanner provides enough bit depth (DSLRs do work on 12 or 14 bits when shooting raw; 8-bits is the maximum supported by jpeg). Believe me, it the scanner can provide the adequate range in your tiff, you no longer need 16-bits. Remember that printers or displays are limited to 8-bits precision (not range).

    I suspect that there will be differences in the very heavily inked areas of the objects, where all detail is merged at 8 bit depth.

    Your technical problem to show a difference is that you are limited by your display or printer.

    A quick way to judge yourself: create the 'custom preview' jpeg I did suggest: A4 size at 300 ppi, jpeg quality 10.

    Print and compare with printing the original (or have both printed). Ask other viewers to give an opinion. Remember: 0.5 % of the file size.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices