Every time a jpeg is savedxc it looses some information and introduces what are called "artifacts"; Tiff does not. Jpeg is called a "lossy" format for that reason - you lose information when you use it. That's also why Jpegs are smaller than Tiffs on a disk..
You can open, edit, and re-save a Tiff as often as you want without losing any of the information in the image..
Jpegs are always reduced to 8 bit images while Tiffs can be 16 bit..
Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...
Please excuse my ignorance, but is working with TIFF similar toworking in RAW? Is there any benefits of saving my processed RAWformat photos into TIFF as opposed to JPEG?.
Thanks in advance!.
My Pics: http://picasaweb.google.com/hotelfive.
First a few definitions..
- RAW is the raw data from your camera sensor. It has to be processed before you can view it. RAW is typically 12 bit / channel or higher..
- TIFF has either an 8bit / channel or 16bit / channel depth (so if you have to pick 8 or 16 bit TIFF, pick 16). TIFF's are either uncompressed or losslessly compressed. With lossless compression you can exactly recover the original uncompressed file..
- JPEG is 8bit / channel, lossy compressed. With lossy compression you can not exactly recover the original uncompressed file. Every time you lossy compress you lose some information. The advantage of lossy JPEG compression is that it makes much smaller files than if it were losslessly compressed..
The general advice is to save as TIFF. Do all your post processing in TIFF, and convert to JPEG only once as the last step before you print or publish the photo on the web. Archive both the TIFF and the final JPEG. That way if you want to post process differently later you have the TIFF containing all the original data..
I prefer to archive the RAW's, TIFF's, and JPEG's to CD or DVD...
If you took it as a tif the camera will save it as a tif and you can view it and print from it..
If you took it in raw mode than a tif will be a reasonable way of saving it but not really necessary, simply because for most practical uses a good quality jpg will do. Which is why a lot of us keep the camera in jpg mode most of the time and only switch to raw when it is needed. That's a similar way of working to (say) only switching to "spot" metering when needed. The reason being that most cameras can get the exposure right and most people are happy with (say) an A3+ print from a jpg..
People will tell you different but there are people who will argue that something costing 99-99 is cheaper than something costing 100 - which it is in theory and practice but is it worth bothering about such a trivial matter?.
It is, of course, also true that continually saving as a jpg will lose a lot but whoever does that and why? Most jpg's are saved once by the camera and then downloaded _unaltered_ to the computer for viewing and printing; neither of which involve saving again..
Of course, if you screw up the picture taking and have to repair the picture then it will be re-saved but is that happening enough to worry about. (If it is: have you thought hard about another hobby? Or letting you wife/girl take all the important pictures on her P&S?).
And, of course, the software used to repair (or as we kindly people say "post-process") the picture will have a few little buttons labeled "Options". Usually you find them when you go to "Save As" which has the advantage of not over-writing the previous file. (EG save "Pic007.jpg" as "Pic007B.jpg" and you'll have the original and the repaired version.).
When you click on "Options" and you'll probably get a choice of JPG Compression. Chose whatever is highest quality and lowest compression..
People get very worried about this subject. But once they've printed a few of the jpg's from the camera unaltered they soon realise that jpg's work very well. I've 32" x 24" hanging on the wall printed from 5 mp camera's jpg's and they work OK. Many people experiment with a high quality jpg, a tif and a RAW coverted to a tif and find no difference. All you need do is take the same picture each time with the newly altered setting and you've solved all your worries..
And if the jpg isn't as good as expected then look in the menus and re-read the manual. You may find something simple needs altering....
David Hughes wrote:.
People get very worried about this subject. But once they've printeda few of the jpg's from the camera unaltered they soon realise thatjpg's work very well. I've 32" x 24" hanging on the wall printed from5 mp camera's jpg's and they work OK. Many people experiment with ahigh quality jpg, a tif and a RAW coverted to a tif and find nodifference. All you need do is take the same picture each time withthe newly altered setting and you've solved all your worries..
And if the jpg isn't as good as expected then look in the menus andre-read the manual. You may find something simple needs altering....
I'll agree, in many cases, but not all, JPEG can be sufficient. I submit that a beginner will not know when they really need RAW->TIFF->JPEG. Therefore, at least for the sake of learning, start with RAW->TIFF->JPEG to preserve all the options. With experience the person will then be in a position to know what works best for their needs...
I have a somewhat different workflow using Lightroom..
I shoot everything in raw and load into LR. I find that for 95% of my images LR is quite adequate for post processing, and I only have to go into Photoshop for 5%. If I go into PS from LR I always save the corrected file as a PSD and bring it back into LR..
If I am printing an image I normally generate a TIFF file in LR and print in Qimage. Sometimes I print directly from LR in which case I don't need to generate a new file. I delete the TIFFs every month or so since I can always regenerate them if I need another print..
I create JPEGs from LR if I need to e-mail them, need them for digital projection or if I am passing on to somebody else who doesn't have LR. Again, I normally delete them after use since I can always recreate them..
This workflow ensures that for 95% of my images I only have a single Raw file on my PC plus a very small adjustment file in the LR database. If I have processed the image in PS I also have one or more (large) PSD files. I find that this workflow makes controlling versions of files and backing up much easier and, apart from the PSD files, minimises disk usage.Chris R..
Great explanations guys, thank you so much!!!.
My Pics: http://picasaweb.google.com/hotelfive..