Tiff vs jpeg?

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)

if you shoot Jpeg large to begin with then there wouldn't be much of a reason to convert to PSD. that is unless you add layers and the such and want to save a full version.

i know some of the cheaper places won't accept TIFF files for print. (tis why they are the cheap places) in reality though the best option would be to shoot in raw, then do whatever steps you must do in between to make it a tiff file in the end. this way you have not lost any information. the only reason i use jpegs is for web. or if i just want to make some cheap 4x6 or something.
 
if you shoot Jpeg large to begin with then there wouldn't be much of a reason to convert to PSD. that is unless you add layers and the such and want to save a full version.

i know some of the cheaper places won't accept TIFF files for print. (tis why they are the cheap places) in reality though the best option would be to shoot in raw, then do whatever steps you must do in between to make it a tiff file in the end. this way you have not lost any information. the only reason i use jpegs is for web. or if i just want to make some cheap 4x6 or something.
cool. my goal is to sell my photos. so I want the best quality. which I know is Tiff but I want to make sure its worth the extra storage. I have a few thousand photos.

weird how this is the same discussion I have add with audio. FLAC (lossless) vs mp3. same logic applies to both
 
RAW, because that's what I shoot. (Discard the worst, keep most)
PSD, if I choose to work on the image or develop it. (very few, 15 of 100)
TIFF if I want to print it (even fewer, maybe 5 out of 100 shots)
JPG if I want to post in on my blog or submit it to some website. (same)
 
so for printing a picture that will hang up on someone's wall. TIFF is the way to go?

It is because it is a universally available format. Everybody can use it. I suggested PSD only because the file sizes are smaller. Actually, I store everything RAW and discard everything else. If I edit something, I finish the project. I make a JPEG or a print or whatever then dump it. Only the RAW file is left. I've ordered a network attached storage unit which should be here tomorrow. After that I may begin saving other file formats with files that I have edited.

How about those Bears, huh?
 
It is because it is a universally available format. Everybody can use it. I suggested PSD only because the file sizes are smaller. Actually, I store everything RAW and discard everything else. If I edit something, I finish the project. I make a JPEG or a print or whatever then dump it. Only the RAW file is left. I've ordered a network attached storage unit which should be here tomorrow. After that I may begin saving other file formats with files that I have edited.
well I'm looking for the most practical way to take, edit, print, and store possibly thousands of photos. can I do this as RAW(shoot and edit) and then JPEG(print and save) without loosing much quality?

remember, I am doing this as a business. I and taking pictures, editing, printing, shipping out to customers.


How about those Bears, huh?
YES how bout them SUPER BOWL bound Chicago Bears!!

hint admins: lets get a sports, or common talk section? :greenpbl:
 
well I'm looking for the most practical way to take, edit, print, and store possibly thousands of photos. can I do this as RAW(shoot and edit) and then JPEG(print and save) without loosing much quality?

remember, I am doing this as a business. I and taking pictures, editing, printing, shipping out to customers.


YES how bout them SUPER BOWL bound Chicago Bears!!

hint admins: lets get a sports, or common talk section? :greenpbl:

You can if the the people who send you images shoot them RAW. Otherwise you will have to store them the way you received them.

I'm located about 90 miles east of Chicago and 120 miles north of Indianapolis. We have both our "local" teams in Super Bowl 41.

I second Matt's remark about not reading Ken Rockwell. He has a website but he is no authority on Photography. Generally, he should be ignored. I think you will find the people here on TPF know more about photography than Ken Rockwell.
 
I admit im new to the photography world. is Kenny boy a bunch of BS?

It depends. If you're looking for comparisons of Nikon equipment, he has one of the most comprehensive review sites on the net. If you're looking to compare Nikon to anything els, he is so Nikon biased it isn't even funny. When I'm looking for a new lens, that's the first place I go.

Oh, and as far as it's concerned, yes the quality of large JPEG is basically the same as uncompressed (to all but the most unbelieveably tuned eyes), but you can do SO MUCH MORE with RAW after shooting the picture. THat to me is the important thing.

This being said, I save every RAW file, then of the keepers, a full size TIFF (printing on mpix), full size JPEG (Print Service on deviantART), small size tiff and jpeg, and a net sized jpeg. Gets big, but hard drives are cheap these days...
 
Take a jpeg and a tiff of the same file to your lab, and have big prints made. Compare them with your own eyes. I can't tell any difference with my photographs. I think there are good reasons to use and save as tiff, but print quality from a finished file isn't one of them.
 
It depends. If you're looking for comparisons of Nikon equipment, he has one of the most comprehensive review sites on the net.

Comprehensive possibly but not authoritative. I don't suggest there is nothing of value on his site. I do suggest that enough of what he says is just plain nonsense that it casts a shadow over everything he does. Sorry, he is no expert.
 
Comprehensive possibly but not authoritative. I don't suggest there is nothing of value on his site. I do suggest that enough of what he says is just plain nonsense that it casts a shadow over everything he does. Sorry, he is no expert.
I will take your word for it. I have only been here a day and have learned alot. I was just hoping someone can tell me there isnt much quality difference when shooting, editing, printing with JPEG. :er:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top