Reading mode: Light Dark

What can you do with TIFF that you can't with JPEG?

Go to last post
Wolfeye

Wolfeye

Veteran Member
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa, US
Received a Panasonic FZ7 for my birthday Friday. I noticed it has no raw mode, but does have TIFF mode. I shot some pics this weekend and can't really tell the TIFFs from the JPEGs. Am I missing something? I have CS2.

--
'Nothing worth doing is ever easy.'
 
In short a tiff is a non compressed jpeg. A raw is the picture as the sensor did pick it up, no camera processing other than a lossless compression. A tiff is a picture on which the camera settings and algoritms have done their job (sharpening, colour, WB etc) but is not compressed so you don't have the artifacts that come with compression. This means that you can do more PP without starting to see artifacts. Raw is like a negative and give you almost full control. Jpeg is fine for normal shots use Tiff if you want the highest quality (Raw is the best but not present on the FZ7)

JS
 
Wolfeye said:
Received a Panasonic FZ7 for my birthday Friday. I noticed it has no
raw mode, but does have TIFF mode. I shot some pics this weekend and
can't really tell the TIFFs from the JPEGs. Am I missing something? I
have CS2.

--
'Nothing worth doing is ever easy.'
Click to expand...
I had the same question a while ago.

With my FZ4 I took test shots which give a simultaneous TIFF & JPEG scrutinized them down to pixil level (magnified until individual pixils were 1/8" across) and could find no difference. I posted some on another forum and although some folks swore there is a difference, nobody could show it to me.

I'd say that for practical purposes the only difference is that TIFF eats up a lot more memory, that's all. I've never used TIFF again.

Cheers -Erik

--



------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you down!------------------------------------------
 
Wolfeye said:
Received a Panasonic FZ7 for my birthday Friday. I noticed it has no
raw mode, but does have TIFF mode. I shot some pics this weekend and
can't really tell the TIFFs from the JPEGs. Am I missing something? I
have CS2.
Click to expand...
Although you might not be able to tell the difference at usual distances, when you do post processing you may run into situations when you CAN.

If, for example, you 'remove' wires from photos what you are doing essentially is finding equivalent areas without wires, outlining the needed area, copying it, and pasting over the wires. If you are working with .tif files there will be no compression artifacts in your work and the result will be good. If you are working on a .jpg there is a very good chance the pasted areas will NEVER look right.

I have specific cases for this where wires were against a pure, blue sky and the .tif worked wonderfully. You can zoom in as much as you want and you cannot find 'ripples' or color variations. My friends working on the same type of situation have never been able to get satisfactory results and I am convinced it is because they were working on .jpgs.

The other case was also 'wire removal' but could be any other delicate retouching that is needed. In this case they were across the front of a brick building. Because the building was parallel to the wires, the same technique worked with .tif files.

There is a reason the camera manuals tell you to use .tifs (or raw photos) if you are going to do post processing. Remember, .jpgs out of a camera are ALWAYS compressed and always have artifacts! If you want accutance, use uncompressed files.
 
Its a waste of time and space.

Google it up, sort out the supporters of both formats and I think you will come to the same conclusion.
Any difference is so small its not worth the time or space.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene
From Western PA.

Panasonic FZ 20 and FZ30
D50 and lenses.

http://imageevent.com/grc6



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
 
I agree with Jim.

1) PP is better done on a TIFF rather then a compressed JPG. JpEG artifacts will be amplified after PP.

2) Noise reduction produces better results on an uncompressed file

On the other hand, you have to manage bigger files.
When you need a better quality image and you need to PP or NR it, use TIFF.
When you need shooting many pics, use JPG.
Jim in TX said:
Wolfeye said:
Received a Panasonic FZ7 for my birthday Friday. I noticed it has no
raw mode, but does have TIFF mode. I shot some pics this weekend and
can't really tell the TIFFs from the JPEGs. Am I missing something? I
have CS2.
Click to expand...
Although you might not be able to tell the difference at usual
distances, when you do post processing you may run into situations
when you CAN.

If, for example, you 'remove' wires from photos what you are doing
essentially is finding equivalent areas without wires, outlining the
needed area, copying it, and pasting over the wires. If you are
working with .tif files there will be no compression artifacts in
your work and the result will be good. If you are working on a .jpg
there is a very good chance the pasted areas will NEVER look right.

I have specific cases for this where wires were against a pure, blue
sky and the .tif worked wonderfully. You can zoom in as much as you
want and you cannot find 'ripples' or color variations. My friends
working on the same type of situation have never been able to get
satisfactory results and I am convinced it is because they were
working on .jpgs.

The other case was also 'wire removal' but could be any other
delicate retouching that is needed. In this case they were across the
front of a brick building. Because the building was parallel to the
wires, the same technique worked with .tif files.

There is a reason the camera manuals tell you to use .tifs (or raw
photos) if you are going to do post processing. Remember, .jpgs out
of a camera are ALWAYS compressed and always have artifacts! If you
want accutance, use uncompressed files.
Click to expand...
--
Rino

http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/photoros

 
Jim in TX said:
Wolfeye said:
Received a Panasonic FZ7 for my birthday Friday. I noticed it has no
raw mode, but does have TIFF mode. I shot some pics this weekend and
can't really tell the TIFFs from the JPEGs. Am I missing something? I
have CS2.
Click to expand...
Although you might not be able to tell the difference at usual
distances, when you do post processing you may run into situations
when you CAN.

If, for example, you 'remove' wires from photos what you are doing
essentially is finding equivalent areas without wires, outlining the
needed area, copying it, and pasting over the wires. If you are
working with .tif files there will be no compression artifacts in
your work and the result will be good. If you are working on a .jpg
there is a very good chance the pasted areas will NEVER look right.

I have specific cases for this where wires were against a pure, blue
sky and the .tif worked wonderfully. You can zoom in as much as you
want and you cannot find 'ripples' or color variations. My friends
working on the same type of situation have never been able to get
satisfactory results and I am convinced it is because they were
working on .jpgs.

The other case was also 'wire removal' but could be any other
delicate retouching that is needed. In this case they were across the
front of a brick building. Because the building was parallel to the
wires, the same technique worked with .tif files.

There is a reason the camera manuals tell you to use .tifs (or raw
photos) if you are going to do post processing. Remember, .jpgs out
of a camera are ALWAYS compressed and always have artifacts! If you
want accutance, use uncompressed files.
Click to expand...
I rather suspect that whilst I quite agree it is not a simple and complete answer - the reason there is a lot of dissent on the quality of jpg's especially after some processing, is that surprisingly SO many people just do not persistently make sure that ANY Saves at all in either PS or similar progs .. are actually done with 100% setting - minimal possible loss. Almost every program I can think of seems to set jpg Saves at a general figure of say 80% .. I almost ALWAYS seem to have to change this , but I bet a lot of folk just do not do so , and THAT probably enhances this trend to getting losses in jpg saving .. and often accepting all of it as a natural thing.

I'm NOT saying that this is a cure .. but just that a 'bad' Save setting can easily contribute to a lot of dissatisfaction , without taking such a possibility into account as a part of it. It certainly can make a difference.

--
eric-UK
I may not be there yet, but I'm closer than I was yesterday.

 
...will you get more DR out of a TIFF? If so, it would be worth it to use it for challenging lighting situations. (I have yet to try it)

rog
jsonic said:
In short a tiff is a non compressed jpeg. A raw is the picture as the
sensor did pick it up, no camera processing other than a lossless
compression. A tiff is a picture on which the camera settings and
algoritms have done their job (sharpening, colour, WB etc) but is not
compressed so you don't have the artifacts that come with
compression. This means that you can do more PP without starting to
see artifacts. Raw is like a negative and give you almost full
control. Jpeg is fine for normal shots use Tiff if you want the
highest quality (Raw is the best but not present on the FZ7)

JS
Click to expand...
--



90% of Photography is just being there...and the other 50% is having the right perspective...
DMC-FZ7...Contax 159MM (RIP)
 
Gene,

I am a liittle more than a newby, but look at my recent posts. I posted some nightscenes pics. All the pics were taken in RAW. The workflow was:
RAW -> Silkypix -> TIFF
TIFF -> Noiseware -> JPEG
JPEG -> CS2 -> JPEG (only for resizing)

I am not able to get the same results from the JPG. Absolutely!

You can say: but you are shooting RAW!

That is true. Development from RAW give more control on exposure and WB management. But I also find Noiseware more efficient on TIFF files than on JPG ones.

At the beginning, I was not able to produce a better pic shooting RAW. And I agreed with you. But I asked me: why professionals shoot RAW and make PP on TIFFs? So I spent several weeks experimenting with RAW development an PP on TIFFs.

Now I can appreciate the results!
genece said:
Its a waste of time and space.
Google it up, sort out the supporters of both formats and I think you
will come to the same conclusion.
Any difference is so small its not worth the time or space.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene
From Western PA.

Panasonic FZ 20 and FZ30
D50 and lenses.

http://imageevent.com/grc6



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
Click to expand...
--
Rino

http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/photoros

 
Well that is a hard one, I know (and you can check it in the many reviews on this site) that a well pocessed Raw might give you some extra DR. I doubt that there will be a difference between jpeg and tiff though as both will have the same camera processing done on them. So if there is a differnce it is due to the compression. I would say that it could be possible to loose highlight detail in a jpeg due to compression but must say I never encountered it in a way I have noticed it. The biggest advantage of tiff is that you have the most headroom for PP, for instance larger cut outs are possible without quality loss. DR is quite a stable factor for a specific camera and only the difference in in camera processing will make a difference if at all. I don't think (this is speculation based on thousands of pictures and many digital camera'a) there is a difference between jpeg and Tiff (assuming that a high quality setting is used for jpeg, the higher the compression the higher the losses, look at the H9) Lowering the default setting for contrast will give you a better DR in both. The pictures might look a bit dull straight from camera but that is easily fixed in PP (as stated in another reply have a look at the settings of PP programs as they indeed tend to use lower quality settings) Also using the histogram is a great help in getting the best DR as a perfectly (or slightly underexposed) exposure will give you the best possible DR. Remeber that it is better to underexpose a little 1/3 or 1/2 stop and adjust this later as this preserves highlight detail. Highlight detail that is blown out is gone forever...

Hope this helps a bit

JS
 
You have formed an opinion.....and while it may hold some truth, but IMHO it still is not worth the time or effort......and I never said you can not get a better result from a RAW file......quite the contrary I use RAW at least 75% of the time with my D50......but this is my opinion of Tiff and Raw on a Panasonic camera........it eliminates the burst option, and its my opinion I have a better chance of getting a good photo with a burst than I do using RAW.....Anyone is entitled to do it their way but I know mine.....If Panasonic would address the burst and perhaps give or sell a converter that understands their file I may change my mind.

We went thru this Tiff thing with the FZ20 , everyone was sure it was a miracle cure...turned out not to be any cure .
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene
From Western PA.

Panasonic FZ 20 and FZ30
D50 and lenses.

http://imageevent.com/grc6



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
 
Don't you get Silkypix with the FZ50, you do with the FZ8 it is not the most userfriendly raw converter but very powerful. Also the adobe software does support the FZ50 and FZ8 raw.

Ofcourse Tiff is no miracle as it has undergone exactly the same camera processing as a jpeg, the only difference is compression. And non lossless compression comes with a loss anytime. You will not see it in small prints but when you PP it is clearly visible. But you are right that it is personal, I hardly ever use the burst mode on any camera, I like to do manual corrections to get what I want (that is why I love ring USM lenses with full time manual override) On the camera's I owned I hardly used Tiff other than very special pictures. Now that Raw is a good option (on the FZ8 delay is under 2 seconds with a fast card) I shoot all in Raw with a jpeg as well on both my FZ8 as my Canon.
JS
 
Gene, you are right about the burst option. When I shoot at my son playng soccer I shoot JPG. When I shoot landscapes with the camera on the tripod and remote shutter, I shoot RAW. Modern cameras have different features in order to give us the possibility to use the more appropriate one for each circumstance.

About the opinion, it is clear that each of us has its own opinion. And I follow forums because I want to read opinions. I have learned a lot from opinions of other guys. Also from you!

I had the opinion that shooting RAW was not better than shooting JPG. Than I experimented, made some progress, and changed my mind. I will continue experimenting, and when I will get the same results starting from an FZ50 JPG, I'll change my mind again.

Till when those discussions contribute to our progresses in photography, all is good!

Cheers
--
Rino

http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/photoros

 
Fill up a 250 GB hard drive in abouta week....

Shoot JPEG. Shooting all RAW takes less space.
 
magich said:
Gene,
I am a liittle more than a newby, but look at my recent posts. I
posted some nightscenes pics. All the pics were taken in RAW. The
workflow was:
RAW -> Silkypix -> TIFF
TIFF -> Noiseware -> JPEG
JPEG -> CS2 -> JPEG (only for resizing)
Click to expand...
I use Adobe Camera RAW and am able to avoid the TIFF part of this progression because you don't have to save the converted file prior to opening in Photoshop CS2. The RAW file is converted by ACR (not saved) and opened directly iin Photoshop, where you then make your adjustments and save as a JPEG. Having tried Silkypix with my FZ50 files, and not seeing how you'd be able to directly open up (if someone knows how to, let me know) the converted image in another image editor, if I chose to use Silkypix I could see using TIFF an an intermediate step. Thankfully, the Adobe workflow is much smoother.
 
Eric,

to amplify your statement:

in TIFF one can do some PP, look at the result and get on with some more PP, and so on. In JPG there would be an introduction of additional compression losses at every save operation. This can be minimised by 100 % jpg setting but then one may get increasing file sizes!

TIFF was used in earlier times extensively when files were small (500 KB considered to be gigantic) but jpg artifacts were much more noticable at the corresponding smaller jpg-files.

Take all this with a grain of salt as eons have passed since.

Rergards, Guenter

--
http://fiebl.zenfolio.com/
 
I agree 100% and I realize my opinion is not the only one.....I just feel there are other things a newcomer should get a grip on, and then they can make their own decision about many other things, as we have done.

And in reply to someone Else's comment about RAW ......most converters can do the conversion but they can not apply the in camera settings , like some proprietary converters can.
magich said:
Gene, you are right about the burst option. When I shoot at my son
playng soccer I shoot JPG. When I shoot landscapes with the camera on
the tripod and remote shutter, I shoot RAW. Modern cameras have
different features in order to give us the possibility to use the
more appropriate one for each circumstance.

About the opinion, it is clear that each of us has its own opinion.
And I follow forums because I want to read opinions. I have learned a
lot from opinions of other guys. Also from you!
I had the opinion that shooting RAW was not better than shooting JPG.
Than I experimented, made some progress, and changed my mind. I will
continue experimenting, and when I will get the same results starting
from an FZ50 JPG, I'll change my mind again.

Till when those discussions contribute to our progresses in
photography, all is good!

Cheers
--
Rino

http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/photoros

Click to expand...
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene
From Western PA.

Panasonic FZ 20 and FZ30
D50 and lenses.

http://imageevent.com/grc6



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
 
No matter what format you start out with, if you are editing your photo over several sessions, save as TIFF or PSD or some other lossless format before saving to another JPEG. If you open a jpeg, edit it, and save it, then open & edit the saved version, and so on, you will eventually see artifacts turn up due to the way jpeg compression works (if memory serves, it does a mathematical approximation based on an area of 8 x 8 pixels).

If I'm doing complex masking & layering, I'll save as a PSD so I can come back to my work, and then again as a JPEG to show/send to people. That way I can always go back to the PSD, with all the masks & layers I've created, and do more adjusting if I want to.

Sterling
 
SterlingBjorndahl said:
No matter what format you start out with, if you are editing your
photo over several sessions, save as TIFF or PSD or some other
lossless format before saving to another JPEG. If you open a jpeg,
edit it, and save it, then open & edit the saved version, and so on,
you will eventually see artifacts turn up due to the way jpeg
compression works (if memory serves, it does a mathematical
approximation based on an area of 8 x 8 pixels).

If I'm doing complex masking & layering, I'll save as a PSD so I can
come back to my work, and then again as a JPEG to show/send to
people. That way I can always go back to the PSD, with all the masks
& layers I've created, and do more adjusting if I want to.

Sterling
Click to expand...
That seems to make sense. -Erik
--



------------------------------------Don't let the Turkeys get you down!------------------------------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top