I could use some clarification on saving photos

[357mag]

Last night I shot three photos and transferred the JPEG images to my computer. I put them in a folder called Digital Photos Original Versions. These are the original JPEG's right out of the camera. Then I did what editing I wanted to do to them and I saved them as TIFF's cuz I learned that TIFF is lossless compression and you won't lose data every time you edit and resave. So after I was done I put these three edited versions in their own folder called Digital Photos Final Versions.

My understanding is that it is the edited version of the photo that you want to save as a TIFF. Not necessarily the original version that came out of the camera as a JPEG.

However now I've read that some people immediately convert the original JPEG's from the camera to TIFF's.

I don't see why. Seems to me the originals out of the camera can just stay as JPEG's. Or am I missing something here?

How do you guys do it?

 

[KevinPutman]

I download jpeg, and upload jpeg ^-^

 

[CCericola]

I would shoot RAW if you can. not Jpeg. Jpegs have problems. The moment they are created in the camera they contain only some of the information that most camera sensors are capable of recording. Also, information the file contains is compressed in such a way that some data are lost, and more may be lost each time the file is edited and re-saved. Shoot raw. Edit and save as a tiff/ Then you can save jpegs from the tiffs for printing as most pro labs want jpegs.

 

[357mag]

I kind of question the idea of shooting RAW. I mean, one of the reasons I got a digital SLR is to eliminate the photo lab and I liked the quickness and the immediacy of the medium. If I start shooting RAW I'm probably gonna have to learn how to work with the software program that manipulates the RAW images. And since I'm not printing large photographs (I don't anticipate printing larger than 4 x 6) does it make sense to monkey with RAW?

Granted I will admit that I'm a little curious to try it just to see what it entails and everything but on the surface I kinda question whether it would be worth it for me.

 

[angel18]

I upload and download JPEG...

...very nice.

 

[KevinPutman]

I kind of question the idea of shooting RAW. I mean, one of the reasons I got a digital SLR is to eliminate the photo lab and I liked the quickness and the immediacy of the medium. If I start shooting RAW I'm probably gonna have to learn how to work with the software program that manipulates the RAW images. And since I'm not printing large photographs (I don't anticipate printing larger than 4 x 6) does it make sense to monkey with RAW?

Granted I will admit that I'm a little curious to try it just to see what it entails and everything but on the surface I kinda question whether it would be worth it for me.

I'd say if you're just sticking with simple computer upload, get comments type stuff, not actual large printing, shoot and save in jpeg. I have no quality issues doing so, and it doesn't take much time/space.

 

[KmH]

JPEG is an 8-bit depth, ready-to-print file format that has little, if any, editing headroom because of the minimal bit depth.

Your camera starts every photo as a 12-bit depth or 14-bit depth Raw file. In the conversion to JPEG about 80% of the color information the camera recorded in the Raw file gets thrown away/discarded to get down to the JPEG 8-bit depth. Additionally in the conversion to JPEG the pixels are locked into Minimum Coded Units (MCU's) of 8 pixel squares again effecting the editing headroom of a JPEG. A lot of times people think they are seeing pixels in a photo, when what they are really seeing is MCU's.

Now a TIFF file can have either an 8-bit depth or an16-bit depth. Converting an 8-bit depth JPEG file to TIFF gives you an 8-bit TIFF.

Somewhere above you may have asked yourself WTF bit-depth is all about, if you don't already know.

Bit depth defines how many gradations of tone an image can have.

An 8-bit depth allows for 256 tonal gradations per color channel. There are 3 color channels - Red, Green, Blue (RGB), so an 8-bit depth file may also be referred to as a 24-bit file (8+8+8=24).
A 12-bit depth file allows for 4096 tonal gradations per color channel (36-bit file), and a 14-bit depth 942-bit file allows for 16,384 tonal gradations per color channel (a 42-bit file).

The bit depth is why many choose to shot Raw files rather than JPEGs.

 

[KenC]

Try it both ways. If you don't, you'll never know for sure whether your work could look better even in small prints or on screen. The raw conversion software, either what came with your camera or Adobe Camera Raw, really isn't that complicated.

 

[clanthar]

To answer your original question -- there is no advantage to converting the camera original JPEGs to TIFF files for archive storage. Save the camera originals as they came from the camera. Do not edit those directly. You are correct that editing JPEGs and re-saving as JPEGs will exacerbate the damage done by the compression component of the algorithm, so your method of conversion to TIFF for editing purposes is sound.

When you shoot JPEGs in camera you are choosing to accept the final result produced by the software in the camera. When you shoot RAW you choose to do the hands on work necessary to arrive at your final result. When it comes time to actually print or display your photo an 8 bit image is appropriate; it's how you get there that matters. The software in your camera can't see. The result it produces will more than satisfy the typical photo consumer and enthusiast. Here's an example:

Like many photographers I shoot RAW, but also have the camera save a reference JPEG. The top version is the camera JPEG as the camera image processor rendered it. It would pass for most amateur photographers; especially if presented alone. It's wrong. The camera software got the tone and color wrong. Software can't see. The bottom version is hand processed from the RAW file.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[480sparky]

I kind of question the idea of shooting RAW. I mean, one of the reasons I got a digital SLR is to eliminate the photo lab and I liked the quickness and the immediacy of the medium. If I start shooting RAW I'm probably gonna have to learn how to work with the software program that manipulates the RAW images. And since I'm not printing large photographs (I don't anticipate printing larger than 4 x 6) does it make sense to monkey with RAW?

Granted I will admit that I'm a little curious to try it just to see what it entails and everything but on the surface I kinda question whether it would be worth it for me.

Given the choice, would you prefer to shoot negative film or Polaroids? Why?

Negatives? Fine. The digital equivalent to the film negative is raw.

 

[357mag]

Well I've spent the last couple of hours monkeying in Adobe Lightroom and experimenting with a JPEG and a RAW image of an apple I photographed. I thought that I would have to manually develop the RAW image but it appears that the software does this for you. When I imported the images, the RAW image was already developed. Overall the RAW apple looked pretty sharp and most noticeable was it appeared to have more saturation and vividness than the JPEG.



I tried to make the JPEG look like the RAW image by fooling around with the brightness and saturation but I couldn't duplicate it. I got it closer but in the end the RAW image always seemed to appear more vivid and snappy looking.



I also zoomed in close and compared the two images. When looking at a zoomed in area of the RAW image there was a bit more info or color spots. When looking at the JPEG some of these color spots and detail were more smoothed out looking a bit more blurry. But this is only noticeable when you zoom in close.



I also tried working with RAW in a demo of Corel Paint Shop Photo Pro X3 and that seems like an alright program but in the end my apple still looked better in Lightroom.



So after doing all this business I have decided to start shooting RAW. Either RAW only or maybe I'll use RAW + JPEG Fine. It wasn't that hard manipulating the RAW image in Lightroom like I feared it would be.



That Adobe Lightroom is a real attractive program.


I would only shoot on slide film which is positive film for best results.

 

[ann]

With my students I use this as an example.

Want to make art =RAW, shoot your neighbors birthday party =jpeg.

These days it is great to have both, especially for those travel shots, etc. Something needs serious correction one has the RAW file to work with , which will handle heavy changes. Image looks fine, no work, easy to send along to family and friends.


For my personal needs , i shoot RAW

 

[sanderso]

I just returned from a beach wedding (as a guest, not the photographer). The sun had gone down before the dancing started. I decided to grab my 70-300, put on the flash and see what would happen (expectations were low). At first look, it wasn't good. But, since I shot RAW all weekend, I got into LR and was very surprised to find I could brighten and salvage many of the dance floor shots. Plus, RAW provided tone control for my daylight shots which I didn't have when shooting JPG.

Before, I shot JPG, then JPG+RAW and now just RAW.

 

[Bynx]

Also in saving to jpeg save to Best Quality possible (12). If you go below that then you are throwing away more file information to make the file smaller which gets progressively worse the more you open and save the file.