Tiff vs jpeg?

[craig]

All of my images are saved as tiffs. As I watch my hard drive space dwindle I question this format. I have seen jpegs (I won a gift certificate once for knowing what that stood for, anyone else?) that lost information and it was not pretty. I know that the uncompressed tiff (what does that stand for?) prints beautifully and is widely accepted in the graphic arts field. Encapsolated Post Script seems to be slipping by the way side, but I sill use it to include clipping paths.

So, how are your photos archived? What are the facts?

 

[markc]

I use TIFFs with ZIP compression. Since I'm the only one that's going to be using them, I'm not worried about compatibility outside of Photoshop. I can alway make a regular TIFF if I need to send an image out for some reason. I only use JPEGs for web display.

 

[craig]

That is an idea. Being a mac user I have to go LZW. The file size is cut in half. Maybe I should ask is information lost in the compression?

 

[markc]

That is an idea. Being a mac user I have to go LZW. The file size is cut in half. Maybe I should ask is information lost in the compression?

Both LZW and ZIP are lossless. The only thing you lose is a little bit of time, which I don't mind at all considering the space it saves.

 

[craig]

That is what I was waiting to hear. I will now compress.

 

[oriecat]

tiff (what does that stand for?)

totally-huge image file format?

 

[Harpper]

It would actually be better if you shot in RAW mode and then convert your files to TIFF if you need to send it to someone asking for them. The reason is that most RAW formats give better or the same results with their lossless compression than TIFF format.

This means that RAW actually retains the same data but in a smaller file size. On some articles I've read RAW actually retained a little more data. When you save a RAW file into a TIFF you will notice that the file size actually inflates. TIFF format isn't as efficient but RAW format isn't adapted by the industry as of yet so you still have to give them TIFF files. It's understandable since RAW files are different from brand to brand and results may vary but it should still be better than TIFF when it comes to smaller size without loss in quality.

Another benefit of shooting in RAW format is that it will also speed up your read and write times because it's about half or a 3rd the size of TIFF. You can always try seeing how small the compressed TIFF file is compared to your RAW files. If they are the same then you are saving yourself a step by saving in RAW format.

 

[markc]

I shoot in RAW, but PS 7 needs a plug-in to use it directly. Can RAW files store layers? I know PSD and TIF files can. That's a really important aspect. I keep the RAW files as original negs, and TIFFs as working ones. I haven't done much of a comparison between TIFF and PSD, but I seem to remember that compressed TIFFs are smaller, which is why I went that route.

 

[Artemis]

Since i know nothing, as i be newb to images and most things, i just use jpg or giff, whatever i save it as.
JPG my favoiret, as everyone accepts that and u dont loose quality...or amy i being stupid?
p.s. what do they both stand for?

 

[voodoocat]

yeah, you lose quality. TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) has all the original information in the image. JPEG removes information to make the file size smaller. The JPEG will have a lower number of colors as well as artifacts from compression.

 

[markc]

I think you have a typo, Voo. JPEG will have the same number of colors as an 8-bit TIFF, but does have compression artifacts. GIF has far fewer colors and should be avoided for photos. If you have to go with JPEG, as some cameras won't do RAW or TIFF, choose the highest-quality/lowest-compression available.

 

[Harpper]

I shoot in RAW, but PS 7 needs a plug-in to use it directly. Can RAW files store layers? I know PSD and TIF files can. That's a really important aspect. I keep the RAW files as original negs, and TIFFs as working ones. I haven't done much of a comparison between TIFF and PSD, but I seem to remember that compressed TIFFs are smaller, which is why I went that route.

You do bring up good points. When I read craig's post I thought he was shooting in TIFF as opposed to RAW. How you archive your files would also depend on your whole process from shooting, editing, to saving. If you constantly do layer work in Photoshop and want to preserve layers then compressed TIFF would be a good choice. RAW files can't be saved as RAW in photoshop so you can't store layers.

The reason I said it can depend on your whole photography process is because for me having a lot of PSD or TIFF files hasn't been a huge problem for me. The reason being is that a personal goal for me is to try to get my shots as accurate as I can from the camera which can save me the need for post editing in Photoshop (aside from the easily rememberable things like sharpening, borders, etc.) Although most of my work is landscape and still photography so it can be easier to take many experimental shots of the same composition so that I have a better chance to get the perfect shot. From a days worth of shooting I'll probably only use maybe 1-3 shots out of 100. If they do need Photoshop work then that's only 1-3 files so it doesn't fill up my hard drive that quickly. Although if I'm lucky enough and they don't need Photoshop work then that's roughly a 5mb file as opposed to a 40mb compressed TIFF files with some layers.

As for needing a plugin, that's also changing. The latest version of Photoshop has preinstalled RAW plugins and since digital photography and RAW files are becoming more popular I don't think they will ever drop that feature. They are also constantly updating their RAW file plugin library so your camera will be supported if it's not already. Also from what I can tell uncompressed TIFF and PSD files are about the same size so compressed TIFF files would be smaller.

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

HI Jeff here nice to join you all.

I'm giving this thread a bump and need some advice. I shoot my pics with a NikonD100. they RAW option is NEF which only opens in Nikon software, then can be converted to photoshop format. i'm sure most of you already know this.


I'm looking for the most beneficial way to go about this. I am starting a website selling photography. what is the best way to give the customer the BEST printing image possible.


1. I shoot the photo (in RAW, TIFF, or Large JPEG??)

2. I edit the photo in PS (crop, center, etc). what file do I save it as??

3. I print the photo. as, JPEG? TIff?



thanks everyone. I look forward to hangin out with you :thumbup::mrgreen:

 

[fmw]

1. RAW
2. PSD
3. TIFF

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

1. RAW
2. PSD
3. TIFF

is there a big difference between image quailty with TIFF? I know this question has been throw out here 100000 times, sorry.

what if I went

1. JPEG (large)
2. PSD
3. JPEG (large)