best image format files to use

[piprees]

Hi, I have corel paintshop x5 and use it mainly for processing astrophotography after stacking. I would like to know which is the best files to use, i.e. fits 32bit, 16bit, tiff, etc. I capture in raw and after stacking I can save in just about any format. I've had a look around the forums but, of course, they are VAST.
Hope you can help,
Kind regards,
P.

[Jean-Luc]

How do you use the file after processing ? Do you print ? Do you send to other people ? Do you studies them in another software ?
For your needs, do you use pspimage, TIFF, other formats ?
What do you mean by "best" ?

In short, be more precise ... :>)

[photodrawken]

Use 32-bit TIFF.

TIF is a "lossless" image format, which means you will retain all the image information from your RAW images.

32-bit means that you will retain all the colour and brightness values from your RAW images.

[brucet]

+1 for tiffs. Keep as much data as possible because once you compress it in any way it has gone forever. (Keeping your RAWs is also a wise move).

regards

[piprees]

Thank you guys, I reckon I'll stick to tiff. I've tried fits but paintshop doesn't want to know, then there's PNG, but that just makes things more confusing. All I really want to do is draw out as much detail that I can from nebulae and galaxies and put them on Flickr. Not too much to ask!!!
Kind regards,
P.

[photodrawken]

Yes, there's a reason the FITS Liberator program saves its output in the TIF format....

[hartpaul]

All I really want to do is draw out as much detail that I can from nebulae and galaxies and put them on Flickr. Not too much to ask!!!
Kind regards,P.

And what is the quality of images on Flickr??? As people have mentioned before the details are important.
Tiffs are good and will hold the quality of your processed images for personal and technical use but take up a lot of space.

Does Flickr maintain that quality?

Irrespective of the quality of your 10000 x 10000 pixel 32 bit Tiff, if it gets reduced to an 800 x 800 pixel 8 bit jpg then those 800 pixels across are going to show only so much detail.

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/29/heres-h ... arly-2014/

It is a bit like purchasing a high performance race car and only driving it in your driveway.

The end result - size and viewing distance and quality of screen will limit the quality of the result.

[photodrawken]

The end result - size and viewing distance and quality of screen will limit the quality of the result.

So what?

As Bruce and I mentioned, it is very important to retain all the image detail and colour information. One can always export the high-quality image to a lower-quality image when necessary.

[hartpaul]

The end result - size and viewing distance and quality of screen will limit the quality of the result.

So what?

As Bruce and I mentioned, it is very important to retain all the image detail and colour information. One can always export the high-quality image to a lower-quality image when necessary.

Sorry left out a word there.
"The end result - size and viewing distance and quality of screen will limit the 'required' quality of the result."