TIFF vs. JPG

[hvulin]

converting jpg to tiff will already lose data so there is no real reason to do it....

just copy it from the card as-is and play with manipulation on a copy and when you are ready do it on the original...

 

[Fastmarc]

Are you saying that each time I open a jpeg in Adobe's Camera Raw, it deteriorates?

 

[BurBunny]

Are you saying that each time I open a jpeg in Adobe's Camera Raw, it deteriorates?

Every time you open a jpeg in an editing program, make changes, and then save back to jpeg again, there is some deterioration, even at "full" setting, as there's some compression. A couple times an it's difficult to notice, but that's why it's recommended if you're going to edit more than once, even to change sizes, etc., that you convert the image to a lossless format such as dng, tiff or psd. Then, when you're ready to output, to upload or print, you save a copy as a .jpg with your final changes. The "master" still stays in the lossless format.

 

[Charlie99]

Are you saying that each time I open a jpeg in Adobe's Camera Raw, it deteriorates?

It isn't the opening of the file that cause problems, it is when it is changed, and then recompressed to SAVE again.

The jpeg compression introduces a small degradation each time the file is compressed. Adobe or other editing program uncompresses it to work with it, and then does a new compression of the data when saving it again as JPEG.

There are two options --- one is to save it as TIFF. The other option, which is what I do with most files, is to keep a copy of the original jpg file, and restart with that original jpg file if I want to change the edits in some way. Obviously, if what you are doing to the file is complicated and takes a lot of work, then it is worth saving the results of that effort, in a TIFF file.

Or even better, if I have put a lot of work into an edit, then I'll save it in the .psd Photoshop format, complete with layers, masks, etc. For me at least, TIFF is kind of an in between format and rarely used because I either go to .psd or leave it in .jpg.

In most cases my edits are just a few seconds of work of cropping, doing levels adjustment, and maybe overlaying some text. In those cases, I just keep the original jpg and start over if I need a slightly modified version -- such as a 5x7" instead of a 4x6". Since I'm starting off again with the original jpg data, there isn't any additional loss, although I'm repeating the editing steps I did on the earlier edited version.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

Before you buy a bigger card make sure your camera is optimized for larger cards. I didn't really believe this was an issue until I researched it. Some camera processing engines will simply not work with a card larger than the manufacturer recommends.

As to Tiff or Jpeg --I would go with Tiff if possible because it is not compressed at all. But then again, I shoot in RAW all the time.

But the fact is a Jpeg will look as good as a Tiff, and print as good as a Tiff provided you have the same resolution. But the Jpeg will not be as good as the Tiff. We did a side by side comparison of Jpegs and Tiffs printed on an Epson 7600 printer with an optimized rip. We printed in Jpegs and Tiffs at various levels of quality --you know what we found? A Jpeg printed at about 700 dpi looked just the same as a Tiff printed at 2,800 dpi.

I know several professional photographers who always shoot Jpegs and simply put the "original" on a disk or extrenal drive for safe-keeping and use a copy for any work they do.

Incidentally, the only time you actually compress or re-compress the Jpeg (in other word lose data) is when you actually save it. So, if you just open the Jpeg, look at it but don't make any changes, then close it --you won't lose data. There is sort of a myth floating around that everytime you open a Jpeg it loses data.

By the same token, there are the photographers (like me) who would never dream of shooting in anything except RAW.

If space on the card is really limited, I'd shoot jpeg and if not shoot Tiff.
Jeff

 

[RonFrank]

TIFF is a lossless format, but not a great shooting format. It's been improved since that camera was introduced I believe, but it stores a lot of redundant data, is only 8bit, and I'm betting your camera will be very slow writing a full TIFF file to a buffer or card. Check your manual!

High quality JPG is likely as good as your TIFF file, but why rely on us? Shoot an image in TIFF, and shoot the same thing in JPG. You can then make some judgments for yourself. It's also a lot about what you are going to do with your images. If you print big, than the best quality output is what you are after. If you generally just display things on the web, and enlarge a couple shots to under 11x14, than jpg is likely going to work fine.

Heed others advice as to how to handle these files when making changes. JPG is a handy format to share, not so much a good format to do editing.

 

[Charlie99]

TIFF is a lossless format, but not a great shooting format.

IMO TIFF is a "tweener" sort of format in the camera also in that it falls in between jpg and RAW without really having the benefits of either.

Many people are happy with JPEG. Reasonable quality and compact in size.

OTOH, if you are looking to get optimal quality, you shoot in RAW.

If you are worried about quality, just skip the TIFF format and shoot your photos in RAW.

 

[RonFrank]

IMO TIFF is a "tweener" sort of format in the camera also in that it falls in between jpg and RAW without really having the benefits of either.

shoot your photos in RAW.

I agree with this advice, however his camera does not support RAW.

 

[cowdog77]

"It isn't the opening of the file that cause problems, it is when it is changed, and then recompressed to SAVE again."
____________________
Ahhh....so if I open an original jpg, and then immediately "save as" a new file to actually work on...the original will not be affected...correct? (Using PS).

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

"It isn't the opening of the file that cause problems, it is when it is changed, and then recompressed to SAVE again."
____________________
Ahhh....so if I open an original jpg, and then immediately "save as" a new file to actually work on...the original will not be affected...correct? (Using PS).

You are still not getting it all. Yes, the original will not be affected, but by imediately saving it as a new file, you have imediately re-compressed it and thus imediately degraded the file you intend to work on.

If you are going the shoot jpg; chose the largest file size (SHQ), then store that file unchanged as it comes off the camera (the original). When you work on the image; open the original, make adjustments, save as new file(s).

In one Photoshop image work session you can first make levels/color/contrast adjustments until image looks the way you like; then re-size for web, sharpen for web (un-sharp mask), save for web, now go back to the step before resizing, crop for 4x6, re-size for printing, sharpen for printing (more un-sharp mask), save for 4x6 printing, back to step before resizing, crop for 5x7, re-size for printing, sharpen for printing (possibly even more un-sharpening), save for 5x7 printing, etc.

All of the above adjustments are made to the original file and saved only once. If you decide to make a cropped (zoomed) 4x6 that is different from the 4x6 made above, the best image will start from the original file. If you use the above finished 4x6 file to crop, re-size and re-save, that image would have reduced resolution compared to the first 4x6.

The reason for tif (or psd) is to save the levels/color/contrast adjustments without loss, so when making later crops/re-sizes you do not have to do the adjustments again. The benifits of un-compressed file formats (raw, tif, psd) depends on the individual user, as many users do not not spend that much time or effort on their images after downloading.