A digital photograph of a collectible is not merely an illustration. It may become a condition record, an identification aid, an ownership record, a provenance clue, an insurance document, a sales asset and evidence of how the object appeared at a particular moment. The file that is easiest to view is therefore not necessarily the file best suited to preservation, editing, evidence or online delivery.
File formats matter, but they do not operate alone. Image quality is created through an entire chain: the correct object and view, controlled lighting, focus, lens performance, sensor capture, processing, file encoding, metadata, storage and display. A collector who chooses an impressive format but photographs the wrong detail out of focus has preserved a technically respectable failure.
The governing principle: preserve once, derive many times
Retain the closest surviving source capture, create a stable high-quality master when the significance of the image warrants one, and generate separate derivatives for databases, websites, email, sales, printing and analysis. The derivative may be smaller, sharper, cropped, annotated or compressed for its task; it should not quietly replace the fuller evidence.
This is not an institutional ritual imposed on every snapshot. It is a proportionate way to prevent today's convenient copy from becoming tomorrow's only surviving record.
Collector scenario
The image that becomes more important after the object has gone
A collector photographs a sealed boxed game before selling it. The marketplace upload is a compressed JPEG, and the phone later removes the local original during a storage clean-up. Months afterwards the buyer disputes whether a split in the shrink-wrap was present before transit. The online image is large enough to recognise the box but too compressed to distinguish reflection from damage, and the platform has stripped the capture metadata.
The failure was not that JPEG existed. It was that one delivery derivative was allowed to carry every role: source, condition evidence, sales record and long-term archive. A retained original, a close defect view and a record of exactly which derivative was supplied would have created a much stronger evidential chain.
Chapter I
One photograph, several legitimate file roles
The first discipline is to stop asking one file to be simultaneously original evidence, editable workspace, preservation master, website image and thumbnail.
File role
Source original
The untouched camera or scanner output and the closest surviving record of what the device captured.
Common forms
RAW, DNG, HEIC or camera-generated JPEG
Collector rule
Preserve it unchanged. A later edit, crop or conversion is not a replacement for the source.
File role
Preservation master
A stable, high-quality representation retained as the authoritative processed record where one is justified.
Common forms
TIFF, DNG or another well-supported high-quality format
Collector rule
Keep full pixel dimensions, useful bit depth, an embedded profile and documented processing.
File role
Working master
An editable file containing layers, masks, annotations or non-destructive adjustments.
Common forms
PSD, Affinity or another layered project format
Collector rule
Retain it for repeatable work, but do not make proprietary working software the only route to the image.
File role
Access derivative
A convenient version for collection databases, ordinary viewing, email and internal sharing.
Common forms
High-quality sRGB JPEG, WebP or AVIF
Collector rule
Optimise for access without overwriting the fuller file from which it was made.
File role
Purpose-specific derivative
A thumbnail, crop, annotated view, sales image, enhanced copy or other version created for one defined task.
Common forms
JPEG, PNG, WebP, AVIF or PDF
Collector rule
Name and label its role. The viewer should not have to infer whether the image is documentary or transformed.
Why role labels matter
File size alone does not reveal authority. A large enhanced image may contain invented texture; a smaller camera JPEG may be the untouched source. Record the role explicitly in the catalogue, metadata or filename rather than leaving future users to guess.
Chapter II
Choosing formats by collector purpose
No format is universally best. Each makes a trade-off among captured information, editability, interoperability, file size, metadata support and long-term dependence on particular software.
Camera RAW
Minimally processed sensor data rather than a finished photograph. Common proprietary formats include CR3, NEF, ARW, RAF, ORF and RW2.
Best use
Important captures, difficult materials and condition-sensitive photography.
Strengths
Preserves substantial tonal and colour latitude for later interpretation.
Supports better recovery of difficult highlights, shadows and white balance.
Particularly valuable for reflective surfaces, pale staining, foil, embossing, weak signatures and subtle production detail.
Limitations
Requires software interpretation and is not a neutral finished appearance.
Different applications can render the same capture differently.
Proprietary formats may depend on manufacturer documentation and future software support.
Collector judgement
Keep the original RAW even after producing a processed master. The interpretation may change; the capture should remain available.
DNG
A publicly documented digital-negative container that can hold RAW image data, previews, colour information and metadata.
Best use
A standardised RAW-oriented working or preservation layer in a controlled workflow.
Strengths
More openly documented than many proprietary camera formats.
Can consolidate metadata and, in some workflows, embed the original RAW.
Supported by a broad range of professional imaging applications.
Limitations
Conversion is still a transformation, not proof that nothing was lost or changed.
Some camera-specific information or behaviour may not transfer identically.
A successful conversion does not justify automatic deletion of the source RAW.
Collector judgement
For highly significant images, retain the proprietary RAW, verify the DNG and preserve both rather than treating conversion as disposal permission.
TIFF
A mature raster format widely used for high-quality and preservation-oriented image masters.
Best use
Processed masters, scans, flat artwork, rare paper objects and colour- or condition-critical records.
Strengths
Can be uncompressed or use lossless LZW or ZIP compression.
Supports high bit depth, embedded ICC profiles and substantial metadata.
Broadly understood in professional photography, scanning and heritage workflows.
Limitations
Large files and inefficient everyday web delivery.
Interoperability can be reduced by unusual compression, layers or proprietary extensions.
A TIFF made from poor input does not become better evidence merely because its container is respected.
Collector judgement
Use selectively where the image merits master treatment. Routine snapshots do not all need to become TIFFs.
JPEG
The most widely compatible photographic delivery format, normally using lossy compression to keep files small.
Best use
Access, sharing, sales, database display and broadly compatible derivatives.
Strengths
Works almost everywhere and is efficient for databases, websites, email and marketplace listings.
Can look excellent when produced carefully at suitable dimensions and quality.
A camera-original JPEG remains a valid source record when no RAW or HEIC exists.
Limitations
Compression may damage small text, paper grain, halftone patterns, signatures and hairline condition features.
Repeated editing and re-saving can introduce further loss through recompression.
Quality numbers are application-specific and cannot be compared as a universal scale.
Collector judgement
Excellent as a delivery format; weaker as the only master when repeated editing or fine evidential interpretation is likely.
PNG
A lossless format particularly effective for hard edges, text, diagrams, screenshots and transparency.
Best use
Text-heavy details, graphics, annotations and screenshots rather than the whole photographic archive.
Strengths
Avoids JPEG blocking around lettering and line work.
Supports transparency and broad browser use.
Useful for condition maps, annotated graphics, labels, maker's marks and database screenshots.
Limitations
Ordinary photographs are often much larger than JPEG, WebP or AVIF equivalents.
It is not a substitute for RAW capture or a reason to convert every photograph.
Transparent backgrounds may change perceived edges and tones between interfaces.
Collector judgement
Choose PNG because the content benefits from lossless hard-edge rendering, not because 'lossless' sounds automatically archival.
HEIF / HEIC
A modern image container commonly encountered in smartphone photography, often using HEVC compression.
Best use
Phone-source originals, accompanied by compatible derivatives where required.
Strengths
Good visual quality at relatively small file sizes.
Can support modern colour, bit depth, sequences and related image data.
Efficient as a phone capture format.
Limitations
Compatibility remains less universal than JPEG.
Automatic platform conversion may strip metadata or alter colour.
Collectors may unknowingly keep only a converted derivative.
Collector judgement
Keep the HEIC source. Create a JPEG or TIFF for systems that need it, but do not mistake convenience conversion for preservation.
WebP and AVIF
Modern web-delivery formats designed to reduce file size while retaining strong visual quality.
Best use
Generated web and application derivatives behind which a stronger source or master survives.
Strengths
Efficient responsive delivery for collection websites and applications.
Support transparency; AVIF can also support high bit depth and HDR.
Can reduce bandwidth and storage used by access copies.
Limitations
Older and specialist software support is uneven.
Aggressive compression can still damage text and fine texture.
Image pipelines may remove metadata or make transformations difficult to trace.
Collector judgement
Treat them as delivery choices, not as reasons to discard established source and master files.
JPEG 2000
A wavelet-based format capable of lossless or lossy compression and used in some archival and specialist systems.
Best use
Specialist environments already designed to manage it.
Strengths
Supports high bit depths, progressive access and lossless operation.
Established in some institutional, medical and geospatial environments.
Can be technically suitable for managed preservation systems.
Limitations
Weak ordinary consumer and browser support.
More complicated tooling than most private collectors require.
Institutional suitability does not make it the easiest personal workflow.
Collector judgement
Do not adopt a format merely because an institution accepts it. Your ability to verify, open, migrate and share it matters too.
PSD and layered working formats
Project files that preserve masks, adjustment layers, text, selections, annotations and alternative edits.
Best use
Working masters accompanied by source files and a flattened high-quality output.
Strengths
Retain editability and make complex processing repeatable.
Useful for annotated condition images, composites and publication work.
Can separate interpretive work from the source capture.
Limitations
Often proprietary and dependent on particular applications.
Large, complex files may not render consistently elsewhere.
They are poor sole preservation copies.
Collector judgement
Preserve the project when it has future value, but also export a stable view that does not depend on the original editing software.
Boundary: format choice is not the same as long-term preservation
This chapter explains what different files can carry and how quality can be lost. Backup design, storage media, fixity schedules, migration planning and recovery testing belong to the wider image-management and digital-preservation subjects. A sound format helps, but no format can protect itself from deletion, corruption, account loss or a broken catalogue link.
Chapter III
What image quality actually consists of
Collectors often jump straight to megapixels or file extension. The more useful test is whether the image preserves trustworthy information for its intended judgement.
Captured detail
Was the significant information actually photographed in focus and without glare?
What it means
Pixels and formats cannot recover evidence that the lens, lighting or focus never recorded.
Collector risk
A technically large file can still be useless for reading a seal, signature, print pattern or hairline crack.
Pixel dimensions
Does the file contain enough real pixels for the intended inspection or print size?
What it means
Pixel width and height describe image data; PPI mainly describes how those pixels map to print dimensions.
Collector risk
A small file labelled 300 ppi may be mistaken for a high-resolution record when it contains little actual detail.
Compression history
Has the image been repeatedly saved, downloaded from platforms or converted between lossy formats?
What it means
JPEG does not degrade by being viewed, but lossy re-encoding can progressively damage fine information.
Collector risk
The apparent 'original' may be a platform copy carrying accumulated artefacts and missing metadata.
Colour interpretation
Is an ICC profile embedded and is the viewing environment colour-managed?
What it means
Numeric colour values require a defined colour space, and screens still vary in calibration, brightness and ambient light.
Collector risk
Paper tone, paint colour, plastic hue or fading may be judged from a display that is interpreting the file incorrectly.
Transformation disclosure
Can a future user tell whether the image was cropped, sharpened, cleaned, AI-enhanced or background-removed?
What it means
Legitimate processing remains trustworthy when the source survives and transformations are explicit.
Collector risk
An attractive derivative can silently become false evidence of condition or originality.
Context and linkage
Is the file connected to the correct collectible, view, date and version role outside the image itself?
What it means
Embedded metadata may be stripped; the collection record must independently preserve identity and meaning.
Collector risk
A perfect file becomes an orphan that cannot be confidently assigned to an item, event or condition state.
A practical quality hierarchy
Correct subject and view
Accurate focus
Controlled lighting
Adequate depth of field
Sufficient real pixel dimensions
Sensible exposure
Stable colour management
Appropriate bit depth
Non-destructive processing
Suitable file format
Complete metadata and item linkage
Verified storage and backup
The order is deliberate. A perfectly preserved TIFF of a blurred, reflective or misidentified object remains a poor record.
Compression: what is removed, and when it matters
Lossless compression
Lossless methods reduce file size while allowing the same pixel values to be reconstructed. Examples include PNG, TIFF LZW or ZIP, lossless JPEG 2000 and lossless modes in some modern formats.
Losslessness protects existing pixel values; it does not prove that the capture was accurate, the metadata complete or the file safely managed.
Lossy compression
Lossy methods discard information judged less important to perception. A carefully made file may still look excellent, but apparently invisible losses can become significant when an image is enlarged or used for a new question.
Vulnerable details include small text, halftone screens, paper fibre, stamp perforations, foil edges, tiny mould spots, production marks and hairline damage.
JPEG does not decay while it sits in a folder
Compression damage occurs when the file is encoded. Viewing, copying or renaming it does not progressively reduce quality. Additional damage may occur when an application opens, alters and saves the image through another lossy encoding pass.
A filename extension also proves nothing by itself. Renaming image.heic to image.jpg does not convert the file; valid conversion requires decoding the source and encoding a real destination file.
Bit depth: editing tolerance, not automatic sharpness
Eight-bit RGB provides 256 possible values in each colour channel and is adequate for ordinary web, database and screen derivatives. A sixteen-bit workflow preserves far more tonal steps and gives greater tolerance for difficult exposure correction, smooth gradients, subtle paper tones, dark glossy materials, reflective metal and colour-critical masters.
Sixteen-bit files do not automatically look sharper. Their advantage is tonal precision during adjustment. Converting an eight-bit source to sixteen-bit does not recover information; it merely places the existing values in a larger numerical container.
Pixels, PPI and the fiction of '300 dpi' photographs
Pixel dimensions describe the actual digital image: for example, 6,000 x 4,000 pixels. PPI describes how those pixels are intended to map to a physical print size. The same 3,000 x 2,000-pixel file remains the same image whether its metadata says 72, 240 or 300 ppi.
A 6,000-pixel-wide image prints at 20 inches when distributed at 300 ppi, 30 inches at 200 ppi and 60 inches at 100 ppi. The file has not gained or lost captured detail; only the intended print density has changed. DPI properly describes printer output rather than the inherent resolution of the photograph.
Resampling is different because it changes the pixel count. Downsampling discards pixels. Upsampling invents intermediate pixels through interpolation or machine-learning methods. Enlargement may look smoother, but generated detail must not be treated as captured evidence.
Chapter IV
Colour, profiles and the limits of visual certainty
A file may be internally correct and still look different on another screen. Colour evidence depends on capture, profile, software, display and viewing conditions.
sRGB
The safest interchange space for websites, collection applications, email, marketplaces, social platforms and unknown displays.
Adobe RGB
A wider gamut useful in controlled print workflows, but liable to appear dull or wrong when software ignores the embedded profile.
Display P3
A wider-gamut space common on modern phones and displays. Increasingly useful, though less universally predictable than sRGB.
ProPhoto RGB
A very large editing space best used in high bit depth. Casual eight-bit delivery can create banding and interpretation problems.
An embedded ICC profile tells software what the colour numbers mean
Without a profile, software must guess or apply a default. That can alter saturation, paper colour, plastic tones, paint, leather and the apparent degree of fading. Preserve the profile in masters and normally in delivery copies as well.
Even then, no file guarantees identical appearance everywhere. Monitor calibration, brightness, ambient light, browser behaviour, viewing angle, automatic phone enhancement and HDR settings all influence what the viewer sees.
For colour-critical collectible records
Use controlled, repeatable lighting
Set or record a fixed white balance
Include a neutral grey or recognised colour target in a reference frame
Work on a calibrated or profiled display
Embed the intended ICC profile
Record unusual materials, fluorescence, iridescence or mixed lighting
Keep processing consistent across comparison sessions
Retain the reference frame with the rest of the session
Chapter V
Processing without corrupting the documentary record
Image processing is not automatically deceptive. Trust depends on whether the transformation preserves meaning, remains traceable and is kept separate from the source.
Usually defensible when restrained and documented
White-balance and modest exposure correction
Lens and perspective correction
Rotation and orientation normalisation
Restrained sharpening appropriate to output size
Tonal optimisation that does not conceal condition
Removal of sensor dust outside the object
Creation of an additional crop while retaining the wider view
Evidentially dangerous without explicit disclosure
Removing scratches, stains, losses or restoration evidence
Rebuilding corners, labels, seals or signatures
Recolouring faded materials
Merging separate object areas into one apparent view
Digital infill or AI-generated repair
Excessive cropping that removes scale or context
Background removal used as the only surviving record
Cropping and detail views
Cropping can improve presentation, but an uncropped or generously framed master may preserve scale, supports, neighbouring components, edge condition, object orientation, colour targets and accession labels. A display crop should therefore be derived from, not substituted for, the contextual record.
For close condition details, retain both the contextual view showing where the feature occurs and the close view that resolves it. A disconnected macro image may later be impossible to locate on the object.
Sharpening
Sharpening increases local edge contrast; it does not restore missed focus. Excess can create halos, false-looking text, exaggerated grain and scratches that appear more substantial than they are.
Noise reduction
Strong noise reduction can erase paper fibre, printing dots, leather texture, patina, corrosion, craquelure, fabric weave and weak pencil marks. Slightly noisy evidence is often better than clean ambiguity.
AI enhancement
AI can generate plausible texture, edges and text. Use enhanced copies as interpretive aids only, keep the source, label the process and never present generated appearance as direct capture.
Computational photography deserves the same caution
Modern phones may merge exposures, perform local tone mapping, sharpen edges, suppress noise, alter colour, simulate depth and identify subjects automatically. These processes can exaggerate embossing, flatten reflections, remove small marks or create false edge detail. For important documentation, retain the least-processed source available and avoid relying solely on portrait, night or enhancement modes.
Chapter VI
Metadata, orientation and the meaning around the pixels
A photograph without context can remain visually clear while becoming evidentially weak. The file and the collection record should reinforce one another.
EXIF
Commonly records camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focal length, capture date, orientation and sometimes location. Useful, but editable and removable.
IPTC
Supports descriptive and administrative fields such as title, caption, creator, copyright, keywords, location and rights statements.
XMP and sidecars
Stores extensible metadata and non-destructive edits inside the image or in a separate sidecar. A sidecar is part of the record and must remain linked to the correct source file.
Documentation checklist for an important image
Embedded metadata is not the only catalogue
Websites, marketplaces, messaging systems and social platforms often strip metadata for privacy, file size or pipeline reasons. Store critical linkage independently in the collection system: item ID, view, caption, date, photographer, rights, original filename, master location and condition notes.
Orientation also needs management. Some cameras store sideways pixels and rely on an EXIF tag for display. Derivative generation should normalise orientation so thumbnails behave consistently while the untouched source remains preserved.
Chapter VII
Integrity: a lossless file can still be lost
Image quality survives only while the correct file remains readable, unchanged, correctly linked and available.
Files may be damaged by failing storage, interrupted transfer, faulty memory, software error, incomplete synchronisation, accidental overwrite, ransomware, silent corruption or a catalogue link that points to the wrong object. The technical format cannot distinguish any of these failures for the collector.
Checksums: evidence that a file stayed the same
A checksum is calculated from file contents. If the contents change, the checksum will normally change. Modern algorithms such as SHA-256 or SHA-512 can confirm that a copy matches its source, a transfer completed intact or a migration preserved file contents.
A checksum proves consistency, not authenticity. A changed file can be given a new checksum. Its evidential value comes from when, where and under what controlled process the earlier value was recorded.
Evidence fidelity
Weaker record
Appearance-first image altered for impact
Stronger record
Faithful capture with disclosed, reversible derivatives
For documentation, the stronger end matters more than visual polish. Sales and display versions may be attractive, but should remain traceable to evidence.
Future interpretability
Weaker record
Only a compressed copy sized for today's screen
Stronger record
Source retained with sufficient detail, colour information and context
The archive should preserve more than today's viewing task requires because future questions cannot be predicted.
Workflow transparency
Weaker record
Roles inferred from filenames and file size
Stronger record
Source, master, working and derivative roles explicitly recorded
Clear role vocabulary prevents a thumbnail, crop or enhanced image from quietly replacing the authoritative record.
Technical resilience
Weaker record
One copy that happens to open today
Stronger record
Verified files, checksums, backups and planned migration
Lossless encoding does not make a file archival. Long-term quality also depends on integrity, storage and continued software access.
Chapter VIII
A proportionate strategy for different collector tasks
Private collectors do not need to imitate every institutional specification. They do need a defensible relationship between significance, risk and effort.
Use case
Capture
Retain
Access
Additional control
Routine catalogue record
JPEG, HEIC or RAW
Keep source
JPEG / WebP / AVIF
Item linkage in database
High-value or condition-sensitive object
RAW plus camera JPEG where useful
RAW plus 16-bit TIFF or verified DNG/TIFF
High-quality sRGB JPEG
Checksums and multiple backups
Flat document, poster or printed ephemera
RAW photograph or calibrated scan
Lossless TIFF where justified
JPEG; PNG for text-heavy details
Retain page or frame sequence
Sales listing
Work from retained source or master
Do not replace master
sRGB JPEG or modern web derivative
Keep defect views and submitted files
Insurance record
Full-resolution overall and identifying views
Retain original files
Portal-compatible copies
Store item ID, date and description separately
Routine collection documentation
Capture high-quality JPEG, HEIC or RAW according to the device and importance of the object.
Keep the original source without overwriting it.
Generate display and thumbnail derivatives automatically.
Store item linkage and view description in the collection database.
High-value or condition-sensitive material
Capture RAW and additional full-resolution detail views.
Retain the source and create a high-bit-depth master when justified.
Use a high-quality sRGB access copy for ordinary viewing.
Record checksums and keep verified copies in more than one location.
Printed ephemera and flat documents
Use calibrated scanning or controlled RAW photography.
Consider lossless TIFF for preservation masters.
Use JPEG for access and PNG where text or hard edges suffer from JPEG artefacts.
For multi-page material, keep individual masters and create a PDF only as a convenient reading derivative.
Sales and insurance evidence
Work from retained originals or masters rather than platform downloads.
Keep overall, identifying and defect views.
Retain the exact derivatives submitted to the buyer, marketplace or insurer.
Record item identity, date and description outside the image as well as inside metadata.
Chapter IX
Myths that weaken photographic archives
Most file-management failures begin with a statement that is partly true, applied as though it were universally true.
Myth: TIFF is always better than JPEG
Reality
A TIFF created from a heavily compressed JPEG preserves the already damaged pixels in a larger container. Format reputation cannot restore discarded information.
Myth: RAW is the true picture straight from the camera
Reality
RAW is sensor data requiring interpretation. Camera profiles, demosaicing, sharpening, noise reduction and tone curves all influence the rendered image.
Myth: 300 ppi means high resolution
Reality
Pixel dimensions determine how much spatial image data exists. Changing PPI metadata without resampling changes the assumed print size, not the captured detail.
Myth: Lossless means archival
Reality
Lossless compression is useful, but preservation also depends on documentation, software support, integrity checking, backup and migration.
Myth: A larger file is always better
Reality
File size can come from inefficient encoding, layers, previews or metadata. It is not a direct measure of useful photographic information.
Myth: Converting a JPEG to PNG improves it
Reality
PNG can prevent additional lossy re-encoding during later work, but it cannot reconstruct information already removed by JPEG compression.
Myth: Opening a JPEG damages it
Reality
Viewing, copying or renaming the file does not reduce visual quality. Re-encoding after changes may introduce additional loss.
Myth: Metadata proves when the photograph was taken
Reality
EXIF and other metadata are useful evidence but can be changed or removed. Confidence comes from the wider record, including source files, database history and associated documentation.
Chapter X
Minimum good practice
A defensible ordinary workflow is more valuable than an elaborate standard that is never followed.
Keep the original camera or scanner file.
Never overwrite the original with an edit.
Generate separate display, web and thumbnail copies.
Use sRGB for broad sharing unless a controlled workflow requires otherwise.
Avoid repeated JPEG editing and re-saving.
Retain full pixel dimensions for important records.
Photograph critical details separately rather than relying only on crops.
Link every image to the correct item record and view description.
Retain metadata, but do not rely on embedded metadata alone.
Keep at least one additional backup and more than one location for significant files.
Check periodically that files still open and links still resolve.
Distinguish documentary images from edited, annotated and AI-enhanced derivatives.
When specialist advice becomes proportionate
Seek professional imaging, conservation or digital-preservation advice when colour or surface evidence is central to authentication, a legal or insurance dispute is foreseeable, the object cannot safely be re-photographed, scientific imaging is required, or a major collection is being migrated between systems at scale.
The threshold is not simply monetary value. Unrepeatability matters: an object may be sold, stolen, restored, damaged, separated from its packaging or inherited without context. Once that happens, the earlier image may be the only remaining witness.
The deeper collector principle
File format is not merely a technical preference. It influences what may still be learned from the photograph years later. A compressed online image may be enough to recognise a boxed game yet insufficient to determine whether the box was recoloured, which printing screen was used, whether a label was replaced, whether a seal was original or whether transit damage existed before shipment.
Storage becomes cheaper; the opportunity to re-photograph an object may disappear. The strongest strategy is therefore not to chase a single perfect format. It is to preserve the source capture, create a stable master where justified, generate derivatives for defined uses, document transformations and keep every file connected to the collectible it records.
Key takeaways
The best viewing file is not necessarily the best preservation or evidence file.
Retain the source, then derive files for access, editing, sharing and analysis.
Capture quality, focus and lighting matter before format prestige.
Pixel dimensions describe actual image data; PPI alone does not create resolution.
Lossless encoding protects pixel values but does not replace metadata, checksums, backups or migration.
Processing is trustworthy when the source survives and material transformations are disclosed.
Metadata inside the file and information in the collection record should reinforce one another.
Preserve more information than today's viewing task demands because tomorrow's question may be different.
