Tiff vs. JPG

What is the advantage of converting RAW files to Tiff as opposed to JPG?

--

10D, D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000 QD, 24-70L, 70-200L IS, 100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and accessories.

Marc Brackhahn said:

What is the advantage of converting RAW files to Tiff as opposed to
JPG?

--
10D, D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000 QD, 24-70L, 70-200L IS,
100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm
f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod
w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and
accessories.

Click to expand...

--Saving images in jpg degrades the image each time it is saved. Saving in TIFF is lossless, i.e. no degradation. I usually therefore edit in tiff so I can come back and reeedit and resave numerous times without degradation. Then I convert to jpog for email. The diadvantage to tiff is that the files are much bigger than when saved in jpg. I therefore take my pictures in jpg fine to get more pictures on each memory card. Then I switch to tiff after downloading.
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Bill Richardson said:

Marc Brackhahn said:

What is the advantage of converting RAW files to Tiff as opposed to
JPG?

--
10D, D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000 QD, 24-70L, 70-200L IS,
100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm
f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod
w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and
accessories.

Click to expand...

--Saving images in jpg degrades the image each time it is saved.
Saving in TIFF is lossless, i.e. no degradation. I usually
therefore edit in tiff so I can come back and reeedit and resave
numerous times without degradation. Then I convert to jpog for
email. The diadvantage to tiff is that the files are much bigger
than when saved in jpg. I therefore take my pictures in jpg fine
to get more pictures on each memory card. Then I switch to tiff
after downloading.
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Click to expand...

Bill

I have a G-2....Do you ever take pics in raw its not that much bigger than jpg fine. I also take in fine but thinking of switching to raw then to tiff since I have plenty of HD space now.

cadmandew

Marc,

As Bill noted, everytime you save an image in jpg format, you lose a little, due to compression. Most people save it to a higher compression, which results in a smaller file size, but with a larger loss in quality. Many cameras save the file as a jpg, by default. In you wish to do it that way the general rule, I was given in a class, was to immediately open & save the file as a tif, do all your editing, & then if you need to save it as a jpg to save space, then do so. If you want to experiment, open a jpg file, save it under a different name, then keep doing phony "edits" on it, resaving it each time. You will begin to notice the difference. Johneb2

Marc Brackhahn said:

What is the advantage of converting RAW files to Tiff as opposed to
JPG?

--
10D, D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000 QD, 24-70L, 70-200L IS,
100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm
f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod
w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and
accessories.

Click to expand...

--I download all my images into a folder from my camera (fuji 602). Generally take shoot with the camera set to jpeg. When making any adjustment to any image I make a copy. To do this I have created an action that dup the image and closes the orginal, turns the background into layer O and makes a copy of this layer. This is linked to Ctrl F7. I do this for two reasons. Firstly so I never damage the original and I alway's work on the second layer when making adjustment so pressing F7 save me time. The worked image I save in WIP file with all layer in place at times very large files size. From this file I copy and flatten for printing or compress for web. It does take up space but I can still work on all stages if not happy.
Regards
Gazza
pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/gazzadownunder

Bill Richardson said:

Marc Brackhahn said:

What is the advantage of converting RAW files to Tiff as opposed to
JPG?

--
10D, D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000 QD, 24-70L, 70-200L IS,
100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm
f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod
w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and
accessories.

Click to expand...

--Saving images in jpg degrades the image each time it is saved.
Saving in TIFF is lossless, i.e. no degradation. I usually
therefore edit in tiff so I can come back and reeedit and resave
numerous times without degradation. Then I convert to jpog for
email. The diadvantage to tiff is that the files are much bigger
than when saved in jpg. I therefore take my pictures in jpg fine
to get more pictures on each memory card. Then I switch to tiff
after downloading.
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Click to expand...

PS7 and other of the hight end photo editing no longer recompress your jpeg files. Only the changes you make in them. I you open a jpeg and then resave it under another name(don't know why you would) with out any changes you have the very same pic.

cadmandew said:

Bill

I have a G-2....Do you ever take pics in raw its not that much
bigger than jpg fine. I also take in fine but thinking of switching
to raw then to tiff since I have plenty of HD space now.

cadmandew

Click to expand...

--Hi cad, It is on my (long) list of things to try! My big hesitation is the anticipated problem of downloading to Photoshop. No factual basis for the concern, just lack of experience. I would appreciate hearing from anybody that has done it to let me know how much of a hassle it is.
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Ronald L Cox said:

PS7 and other of the hight end photo editing no longer recompress
your jpeg files. Only the changes you make in them. I you open a
jpeg and then resave it under another name(don't know why you
would) with out any changes you have the very same pic.

Click to expand...

--That is interesting to know. But what if I change the overall photo, such as changing the brightness of a photo?
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

gazza down under said:

--I download all my images into a folder from my camera (fuji 602).
Generally take shoot with the camera set to jpeg. When making any
adjustment to any image I make a copy. To do this I have created
an action that dup the image and closes the orginal, turns the
background into layer O and makes a copy of this layer. This is
linked to Ctrl F7. I do this for two reasons. Firstly so I never
damage the original and I alway's work on the second layer when
making adjustment so pressing F7 save me time. The worked image I
save in WIP file with all layer in place at times very large files
size. From this file I copy and flatten for printing or compress
for web. It does take up space but I can still work on all stages
if not happy.
Regards
Gazza
pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/gazzadownunder

Click to expand...

--Gazza, Probably the best way to do it and the keystroke shortcut is a great idea. But, Why the second copy?
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Bill;

I just tried shooting raw on a senior and I know I can use the files, but here are a few things I didn't like;

My E10 provided only a thumbnail for instant viewing.

To load one file into PhotoShop6 takes about 80 seconds. My files looked like an all-day job, so I used Quimage Pro to save all images to tiffs. Then I color corrected,(necessary for my raw files) retouched a few & made a slide show.

Surprise-the file sizes were all about 5x7s at 300 dpi. I like to use the MUCH larger sizes at 250. When the order comes in, I'll begin again with the raw files & go through the slow process in PhotoShop. (these were saved in tif correctly)

Is the color always bad in raw? My camera gets wonderful color in fine jpg.
The only advantage I saw was that the levels adjusted the light better.

For now, I'm back with fine JPG. I must have done something wrong. If anyone knows, hope you'll clue me in.

Bill Richardson said:

cadmandew said:

Bill

I have a G-2....Do you ever take pics in raw its not that much
bigger than jpg fine. I also take in fine but thinking of switching
to raw then to tiff since I have plenty of HD space now.

cadmandew

Click to expand...

--Hi cad, It is on my (long) list of things to try! My big
hesitation is the anticipated problem of downloading to Photoshop.
No factual basis for the concern, just lack of experience. I would
appreciate hearing from anybody that has done it to let me know how
much of a hassle it is.
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Click to expand...

--
Nancy Salisbury

I was reading about a new compression algorithms called jpeg 2000. Has anyone heard of this? Its advertised as having both lossy and lossless compression.

Seven

Another thing I didn't like -- my raw files were a little mushy, and I don't think that can be fixed. I don't like to sharpen.

You might first try shooting something unimportant in raw. Then get a work flow going that suits you.

Nancy Salisbury said:

Another thing I didn't like -- my raw files were a little mushy,
and I don't think that can be fixed. I don't like to sharpen.
You might first try shooting something unimportant in raw. Then get
a work flow going that suits you.

Click to expand...

--Hi Nancy, I probably should not comment since I have never used RAW but nobody else is, so I will ;-) My unserstanding is that RAW images are totally uncorrected. Therefore the in camera adjustments like sharpening and color enhancement are not applied by the camera. The RAW files therefore look mushy and grayish. It shows you just how much processing the camera does itself. People use RAW to avoid these in camera improvements in order to have total control. Conversely, it makes some folks appreciate the in camera functions! It also explains why some people are so disappointed when moving up to a DSLR and getting "poor" photos as compared to their prior, P&S. ^The photos are better but unprocessed (in RAW)
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Bill Richardson said:

gazza down under said:

--I download all my images into a folder from my camera (fuji 602).
Generally take shoot with the camera set to jpeg. When making any
adjustment to any image I make a copy. To do this I have created
an action that dup the image and closes the orginal, turns the
background into layer O and makes a copy of this layer. This is
linked to Ctrl F7. I do this for two reasons. Firstly so I never
damage the original and I alway's work on the second layer when
making adjustment so pressing F7 save me time. The worked image I
save in WIP file with all layer in place at times very large files
size. From this file I copy and flatten for printing or compress
for web. It does take up space but I can still work on all stages
if not happy.
Regards
Gazza
pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/gazzadownunder

Click to expand...

--Gazza, Probably the best way to do it and the keystroke shortcut
is a great idea. But, Why the second copy?
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Click to expand...

--I copy the image so always have the orginal in place, for later use. The orginal is never damaged this way.

When applying filters like virtual painter a 3rd copy layer is made (orginal copy 1 copy 2). When happy with effect I merge own to the 2nd layer. Note you can adjust opt etc on the 3rd layer. If other effects are required, dup the 2nd layer again.............. This way I always have the orginal layer to dup if need or for blending the adjusted layer and the layer being worked on. This is just one work flow I use it may change depending on what required.

Before I flatten any image ( for web or Print) I make a copy. That way I can go back to the adjusted image and make fine adjustments. All layer a still in place. Also adjustment layers are still available ie hue sat......
I hope i've answered you question.
Regards
Gazza
pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/gazzadownunder

Marc,

There are numerous advantages in a RAW-TIFF workflow. I'm working on a series of examples that showcase your question. Here is the first example in a series:
http://www.vizualgroove.com/digitalimaging/shadownoise1.htm

This shows the shadow detail difference in a converted RAW versus an out of the camera highest rez JPEG.

There are advantages to shooting JPEG over RAW if you are concerned with capture speed, continuous shooting and small file size. For exposure latitude, shadow and highlight detail recovery, white balance and overall detail, RAW is optimal.

RAW requires more time in your workflow but to me is worth it. I want quality, not boilerplate quantity.

Now as to your specific question of converting a RAW to TIFF or JPEG it all depends on your requirements for your output. If you are editing for print, especially large print, and want the absolute best 'negative', use TIFF. If you are using the output for web, slideshows or emails, use JPEG.

JPEG does lose info each time it is edited and saved as JPEG, regardless of the compression settings.
HTH,
VG

Marc Brackhahn said:

What is the advantage of converting RAW files to Tiff as opposed to
JPG?

--
10D, D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000 QD, 24-70L, 70-200L IS,
100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm
f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod
w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and
accessories.

Click to expand...

Gazza, You got me off my butt to make a duplicate and close action to which I assigned the F12 key. I then added a big red arrow to my key board so I would not forget it. No more excuses for working on the original here! Thanks for the kick start. This alsowas the first time I used the key assignment option--always learning!
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

VG said:

Marc,
There are numerous advantages in a RAW-TIFF workflow. I'm working
on a series of examples that showcase your question. Here is the
first example in a series:
http://www.vizualgroove.com/digitalimaging/shadownoise1.htm
This shows the shadow detail difference in a converted RAW versus
an out of the camera highest rez JPEG.

Click to expand...

--I assume the left one was the RAW one???
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

StudioSeven said:

I was reading about a new compression algorithms called jpeg 2000.
Has anyone heard of this? Its advertised as having both lossy and
lossless compression.

Seven

Click to expand...

To my knowledge JPEG2000 isn't available for generic use yet, but when it will be it should offer some very interesting new features. Assuming the specs are still the same they were some year or so ago when I read about it, probably the "best" (IMO) feature is variable compression. In the simplest terms this means that high-detail areas are saved with lower compression rate than low-detail areas.

For example, if the picture has a well-lit person in the middle, surrounded by a low-light, low-detail background, the area covered by the person might be saved at quality level 12 (Photoshop 6), while the background would be saved at 6 (once again, Photoshop 6 JPEG quality level).

It is my undestanding that it depends on your use.

JPG, if no adjustments are required will produce the same results a Tiff. It only degrades as you manipulate it and then save it again. If you shoot in JPG and adjust for color and crop, you will not notice a substancial diofference from tiff.

That said I always save in Tiff because it is lossless and sometimes I might want to change a background or do some photoart to it and I can be assured that no degradation will accure.

As I have not gone to a digital camera yet I can only relay the advantage of raw mode from a Phpotgrapher named Tim Grey who works with Grorge Lepp. He says that raw will give you an un altered image from a digital camera where as Tiff and Jpg has been adjusted by the camera ( which is ok) He uses it because he likes to have control but on occasion use the others. The problem with raw is not all programs can work with it. Adobe has a plugin that will accept it for most Pro cameras, except Canons new D10. There is no new plugin from Adobe on the planning board but the new Adobe will have it. If anybody is interested you can contact Tim and he will tell you of a web sight that has a so called solution for the D10.

I have adjusted JPG down loads of my grasnd children from a three MEGa Pixel camera with no noticable effects up to 5 x 7 after that I have to touch up Jpg jaggies to get it to 8 x 10.

I think if we are shooting a birthday party JPG fine is great. Most of us adjust it once for color and contrast or crop and this wont show up as a problem, no matter how many times you open and close it. ( just donrt keep resaving.

Important close ups and special portraits I use tiff and when I get me the Canon D10 I hope I hope! I will check into Raw but based on what I read
Tiff is great and the difference is not that much.

Bill,
You are correct, it is RAW on the left.
VG

Bill Richardson said:

VG said:

Marc,
There are numerous advantages in a RAW-TIFF workflow. I'm working
on a series of examples that showcase your question. Here is the
first example in a series:
http://www.vizualgroove.com/digitalimaging/shadownoise1.htm
This shows the shadow detail difference in a converted RAW versus
an out of the camera highest rez JPEG.

Click to expand...

--I assume the left one was the RAW one???
Bill Richardson
Barrington, IL (USA)
Canon G3, 420EX, and PhotoShop 7

Click to expand...