The beauty of Fujifilm: no need for post-processing

Started Jul 14, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Jim in Hudson Senior Member • Posts: 2,010
Re: obsessing the insignificant

noyo wrote:

Mirfak wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

An "uncompressed JPG" is a TIFF (, which some cameras do include as an option, and which I agree would be a nice thing to have.

Not true. There is a standard for compressed and uncompressed 12-bit JPEG. Problems is that not many apps support it.

Not sure I follow the 'uncompressed JPG" is a TIFF' in real terms. Nor can I be bothered to find out as it seems academic and OTT. If you read on you'll find out why.

I did this sort of thing years ago but not recently. So I have just tried exporting a 24.96 MB RAW file in LR5.4

The 80% quality jpeg (8 bit) was 3.77 MB

The 100% quality jpeg (8 bit) was 9.28 MB

The TIFF (16 bit) was 91.47 MB

To be honest. It is impossible to tell the difference between these three files when viewed at full size on my calibrated 22" IPS monitor.

I cannot think on why it would be necessary to have the TIFF unless it is to print really big, and I mean massive, which is probably a rarity for most people. Routinely saving TIFFs seems like an absurd extravagance, to me.

Although much better, the 100% jpeg seems like an unnecessary abuse of HDD space too.

It also makes a mockery of the concept of pixel peeping and then bleating about bleeding colour or other pixel level artefacts. I did see some weird stuff at full screen size on the PSD file I tried. Best avoid that.

In theory there could be a visible difference between the 16 bit TIFF and the 8 bit jpeg when printed on a good quality printer. Even if there is, how many people could tell the difference? I haven't tried that yet with my current workflow. I did do it years ago with 6(12)MP SuperCCD and PS CS2. The pro print labs near here didn't seem to understand TIFF and I got better results from them by supplying jpegs. The TIFF prints were awful.

For me shooting RAW and exporting to approx. 70-80% quality jpeg, at the required size for use, is the best use of HDD space while keeping my options open, should I ever want to super-size any prints. Plus I have the ultimate control of colour, tones, DR, effects, etc.

Some of you will interpret what I have just said as a case for shooting jpeg and getting it right, SOOC. I prefer to keep my options open by shooting RAW and having the creative benefits/options.

I'm sure TIFF has justifiable uses for some people at times. But for most people, most of the time it is like wanting a Rolls Royce to drive to the local supermarket (for cat food ). IMHO.

-- hide signature --

I think the difference between a 97% and 100% quality JPEG is likely to be trivial compared to the difference between 8 bits and either 12 or 14 bit files, assuming editing is your objective.

 Jim in Hudson's gear list:Jim in Hudson's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Pentax K-3 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow