Tiff vs jpeg?

[Chicagophotoshop]

JPEGs seem to be fine to be honest. I shoot at 12mp and save them at the higest possible quality and the print qualtiy is great.

well my d100 is only 6.1mp I really am looking for justification for using and saving RAW & TIFF. someone to say here is why you should do it.

 

[clarinetJWD]

well my d100 is only 6.1mp I really am looking for justification for using and saving RAW & TIFF. someone to say here is why you should do it.

The main reason to use tiff is if ou want to preserve layers.

 

[Azuth]

It's already been said; Uncompressed TIFF is lossless. JPEG is not.

If you open an image and save it as a JPEG, then open, edit and save it again you are introducing more loss, like a photocopy of a photocopy.

If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It is very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use a image format that is not lossy (TIFF, BMP, PNG) for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving within the same editing session won't introduce additional damage. It is only when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again.

A max quality JPEG will print fine, but there are good reasons to use a lossless format. The above is it for me.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm

 

[Digital Matt]

It's already been said; Uncompressed TIFF is lossless. JPEG is not.

Compressed tiffs are lossless too. You can choose from LZW or Zip lossless compression, and save layers in photoshop as well. I use TIFF over psd. A compressed tiff with layers is half the size of its equivalent PSD.

 

[Azuth]

Heh Matt, I was going to include that qualification, but I forgot to write it in. It also had already been said. Though the option of JPEG compression for a TIFF file is an interesting one, I figure that isn't lossless, though I don't know that for sure.

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

The main reason to use tiff is if ou want to preserve layers.

ok cool, so it doesnt have too much difference in quality?

Is it worth nearly a 600% increase in file size for the tiny amount of extra quality of the TIFF?

 

[ksmattfish]

well my d100 is only 6.1mp I really am looking for justification for using and saving RAW & TIFF. someone to say here is why you should do it.

Save as raw if you ever think you'd like to re-process the photo from the beginning. The problem with raw is that every company uses it's own (and it even changes from time to time from the same company), and you'll need to pay attention to make sure that you still have software available that will open your raw files in the future.

Save as tiff if you are worried about proprietary raw software vanishing in the future, or if you think you might be re-editing the photo in the future.

Save as high quality jpeg if you are done with the photo, and won't ever be doing anything else with it but having a lab print it, or re-sizing it smaller for web use.

I edit in the raw converter, then open the raw as a tiff to do more editing, then convert to jpeg and save for printing. In the end I save both the jpeg and the raw, and only save the tiff if I did some very complex editing that I don't want to have to do again. I like to start over from the beginning when I come back to a photo again in the future, because usually I've learned more digital photography skills/techniques, and can do a better job than I did in the past.

Raw plus jpeg files together are usually about 1/2 to 2/3 the size of a 16 bit tiff. I save a little bit of space, and I can make a tiff if needed from the raw file.

EDIT: Something to consider, people sometimes refer to a "quality loss" between tiff and jpeg. A much more accurate term is "information loss", which is not the same as quality. Yes, it can affect quality, but probably not if you know what you're doing. A huge amount of information loss occurs when we turn a file into a print, yet the quality usually remains similar.

 

[Chicagophotoshop]

Save as raw if you ever think you'd like to re-process the photo from the beginning. The problem with raw is that every company uses it's own (and it even changes from time to time from the same company), and you'll need to pay attention to make sure that you still have software available that will open your raw files in the future.

Save as tiff if you are worried about proprietary raw software vanishing in the future, or if you think you might be re-editing the photo in the future.

Save as high quality jpeg if you are done with the photo, and won't ever be doing anything else with it but having a lab print it, or re-sizing it smaller for web use.

I edit in the raw converter, then open the raw as a tiff to do more editing, then convert to jpeg and save for printing. In the end I save both the jpeg and the raw, and only save the tiff if I did some very complex editing that I don't want to have to do again. I like to start over from the beginning when I come back to a photo again in the future, because usually I've learned more digital photography skills/techniques, and can do a better job than I did in the past.

Raw plus jpeg files together are usually about 1/2 to 2/3 the size of a 16 bit tiff. I save a little bit of space, and I can make a tiff if needed from the raw file.

EDIT: Something to consider, people sometimes refer to a "quality loss" between tiff and jpeg. A much more accurate term is "information loss", which is not the same as quality. Yes, it can affect quality, but probably not if you know what you're doing. A huge amount of information loss occurs when we turn a file into a print, yet the quality usually remains similar.

great information, thank you

 

[highwoodhiker]

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.

You don't necessarily need to save the Tiffs. 1)Shoot in raw. Save the raw. 2)Process as PSD. Save the PSD. 3)Convert the PSD to tiff to print. Delete the tiff. 4)For web, use jpeg compression on the PSD. (This is how I and many others do it)
If you need to print again later, convert the PSD to tiff.
Or 3)Convert the PSD to tiff, print it and then compress it. Delete the PSD 4)For web use, use jpeg compression on the tiff.(This is how many others do it)

As far as jpegs straight from the camera, the raw image gets processed by the camera and then compressed to a jpeg. There's not a whole lot of information left to process the image properly. If a person likes to do the processing part themselves then you need to start with raw and then convert it to tiff or PSD and finally jpeg if it's needed for the web. The end result will be better but it involves a lot more time and some fairly large originals to save. Jpeg from the camera is fine for those who are willing to give up some of the quality available to save all that time and storage space.
Jpegs aren't such a bad thing. Besides the convenience of having most of the processing done by the camera, giving a ready to print file which is completely adequate for the people who believe it is completely adequate for them, jpeg conversion is a rather amazing way, if done at a reasonable quality setting, to downsize a photo to a dimension and file size that is easily sent by email or posted on the web without any noticeable loss of quality. Not noticeable enough to worry about anyway, unless you use very low quality jpeg compression. Looks like crap at full size on a monitor but that's not the way jpegs are meant to be used. Full size is for printing or making into smaller sizes for web or email and despite it's size is a small enough file to store 1000's on your computer and covert to any size you wish whenever you wish.
Yea, jpeg is a lossy compression method. But try posting your full size raw, tiff or PSD on Flickr. Ain't gonna work. You need to use (amazing) jpeg compression to get it down to 600x800 to post it.
And one of the best ways to make noise less noticeable is to compress the original jpeg down to a modest size for viewing on the web. Another bonus for people who really don't want to mess around processing their photos.
I use raw not just because it's 'better' but because I can do the processing myself. I like that part. If digital hadn't come along, I'd spend my computer processing time in a darkroom instead. And I'd like it. Jpeg is for people who didn't like the darkroom part when we used film. And can ya blame them? It's definitely not for everyone. Just like any other hobby you could think of.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the main difference between TIFF/RAW and JPEG: Tonal range. You're all talking about formats and compression schemes, but not the thing that is the most important. This is where film still has the edge, and it is where RAW & TIFF still have the edge over JPEG.

 

[markc]

I think that's what Voodoocat was getting at, but I misinterpreted what he said.

GIF (4 bit)- 16 levels x 3
JPG (8-bit)- 256 levels x 3 colors
8-bit TIFF - 256 levels x 3 colors
RAW (12 bit) - 4096 levels x 3 colors
16-bit TIFF - 65,536 levels x 3 colors

Converting a RAW image to anything but a 16-bit TIFF will lose tonal definition and colors. Converting to a 16-bit TIFF won't gain you any colors or change it's current tone definition, but it does give you more breathing room when you make adjustments.

 

[kkart]

I saw it was from ken rockwell, and I didn't read it

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Alex_B]

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself!

well, most of us in here had our shocking experiences with some of his articles