TIFF Image Watermark saved as TIFF, file size reduction

Started 5 months ago | Questions
ChickenLegs69 Junior Member • Posts: 25
TIFF Image Watermark saved as TIFF, file size reduction

Hi all - hoping for some advice please - what started as a simple exercise has turned into a lengthy one. Simply put, I shoot in RAW (Canon 80D), I touch up in DPP4, save as a TIFF to retain as much image quality as possible and then I want to overlay a watermark.

The s/ware I'm using (Visual Watermark Premium) has the option to save as JPEG, TIFF etc, after applying the watermark. I select TIFF and the original TIFF (33MB) reduces to 7MB with a noticeable degradation in quality after applying watermark and saving.

I've gone back to the provider of the s/ware and asked the question, but I'm not hopeful for a positive "do this and it will work" response, so ........ does anyone know of an alternative that will add a watermark and retain image quality and file size?

Hopefully ......

 ChickenLegs69's gear list:ChickenLegs69's gear list
Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Olympus Tough TG-4 Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Ho72
Ho72 Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Re: TIFF Image Watermark saved as TIFF, file size reduction

Are the pixel dimensions the same after output from your watermark software? If not, you may have inadvertently selected an option to resize.

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,473
Three factors affecting TIFF size
1

I shoot in RAW (Canon 80D), I touch up in DPP4, save as a TIFF to retain as much image quality as possible and then I want to overlay a watermark.

The s/ware I'm using (Visual Watermark Premium) has the option to save as JPEG, TIFF etc, after applying the watermark. I select TIFF and the original TIFF (33MB) reduces to 7MB with a noticeable degradation in quality after applying watermark and saving.

I've gone back to the provider of the s/ware and asked the question, but I'm not hopeful for a positive "do this and it will work" response, so ........ does anyone know of an alternative that will add a watermark and retain image quality and file size?

Assuming the pixel dimensions remain constant, three factors affect TIFF file size:

(1) bit depth: TIFFs can be 16 bits per channel or 8 bits per channel. Obviously an uncompressed TIFF will be twice as large at 16 as at 8.

(2) Layers: TIFFs can contain multiple layers and related info; more layers means bigger file size.

(3) Compression: many TIFFs are uncompressed, some TIFFs have lossless compression, and IIRC you can even, in some software, apply lossy compression to a TIFF.

Given that TIFFs from your 24 MP camera were 33 MB, my guess is that they started out as either losslessly-compressed 8-bit TIFFs, or lossy-compressed 16-bit TIFFs.* And then the watermarking software recompressed, probably in a lossy way, which is why there's a loss of quality.

*At 6000x4000 pixels, with three channels each pixel (red, green, and blue), an uncompressed 8-bit TIFF would be about 69 MB, and an uncompressed 16-bit TIFF would be about 138 MB.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
OP ChickenLegs69 Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: TIFF Image Watermark saved as TIFF, file size reduction

Confirmed - Pixels are the same, although on reviewing "Properties"/"Details" for each image, original TIFF is noted as Uncompressed with a Bit Depth of 48, where as the watermarked image has compression noted as "LZW" (what is that??) and Bit Depth of 24.

Colour representation remains sRGB

I've also read that a compressed TIFF doesn't do anything to the image quality - not sure what this all adds up to... translations please??!??..

 ChickenLegs69's gear list:ChickenLegs69's gear list
Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Olympus Tough TG-4 Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
OP ChickenLegs69 Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Three factors affecting TIFF size

Thank you for this comprehensive reply! - I follow the logic (I think!) - Is there a w/mark application that doesn't degrade the TIFF when applied? (I've just updated prior response with some image data, Pixels the same, one is uncompressed and 48 bit depth, the new watermark image is compressed "LZW" and a reduced bit depth of 24)

 ChickenLegs69's gear list:ChickenLegs69's gear list
Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Olympus Tough TG-4 Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,473
Re: Three factors affecting TIFF size
1

Thank you for this comprehensive reply!

You're welcome.

I follow the logic (I think!) - Is there a w/mark application that doesn't degrade the TIFF when applied?

I have no idea; I almost never watermark, and where I do, it's either in the raw converter (DxO PhotoLab has this feature) or pixel editor, basically part of the creation of the original file, not done with stand-alone watermarking software.

(I've just updated prior response with some image data, Pixels the same, one is uncompressed and 48 bit depth, the new watermark image is compressed "LZW" and a reduced bit depth of 24)

Yes, I saw where you wrote:

on reviewing "Properties"/"Details" for each image, original TIFF is noted as Uncompressed with a Bit Depth of 48, where as the watermarked image has compression noted as "LZW" (what is that??) and Bit Depth of 24.

which raises some issues. The bit depth of 48 means 16 bits for each of the red, green, and blue channels, and similarly 24 is 8 for each channel. If the file is a 16-bit uncompressed TIFF, and its size is 33 MB, then the image contains only about 5.8 megapixels. In other words, it had to have been heavily cropped and/or substantially resampled from the 6000x4000 pixels that the 80D captures to about 2940x1960 pixels before the first TIFF was created.

LZW is supposed to be lossless (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch). If you have about 2940x1960 pixels, for an 8-bit file that's 16.5 MB, from which a 7 MB file would be about 2.4:1 compression. Maybe on some images LZW can achieve the much compression. But even if some lossy compression was used, it should not be noticeably lossy. IOW, the quality should be excellent even if the compression is lossy.

So something is not making sense / is seriously off. Do you do so much watermarking that you have to use this software? Because at the moment I'm suspecting something is off with the watermarking software.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
OP ChickenLegs69 Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Three factors affecting TIFF size

Watermarking - first "real" try, something contemplated for many months (years) but nothing done until the last couple of weeks  - did some reading before purchasing, but clearly it was limited given what I'm finding out here!

Original thinking was that I could use DPP4 for dressing up the images, pay the one off fee to watermark and it would all come together without having to contemplate photoshop fees..... wrong!

This journey was started as I had a couple of people ask if they could view some of my shots from F1 at Silverstone two weeks ago.... I get the market is saturated with very good amateurs and some superb professionals [F1 - Mark Sutton +++]  (I'd put myself in a bucket of competent amatuer and still learning) - I stand little to no chance of achieving anything financial from this, it's the satisfaction of getting "THAT" image .... we all know the one... you just know it when you snapped, and you want to share. On the slight off chance that someone else may like, before I go to Instagram or other mediums, I'd like to ensure I get the "nod" so to speak - anyway, far too much info..... but appreciate the insight provided - cheers!

 ChickenLegs69's gear list:ChickenLegs69's gear list
Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Olympus Tough TG-4 Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,473
Re: Three factors affecting TIFF size

Original thinking was that I could use DPP4 for dressing up the images, pay the one off fee to watermark and it would all come together without having to contemplate photoshop fees..... wrong!

Serif Affinity Photo is likely to give you 97% of the Photoshop capabilities that you'd actually use for only $50, or sometimes even on sale for $25 (or the equivalent in your home country). I have not used it to watermark, but I'll give 14:1 odds that it can do so with sufficient ease and fine quality.

But just to point out: there are multiple technical issues I raised, which have substantial ability to affect your results, that have not been addressed--like how you'd get a 33 MB uncompressed TIFF from an 80D. There are some complex interactions in play, and although my leading suspicion is some issue with your watermarking software, it's not the only real possibility.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
OP ChickenLegs69 Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Three factors affecting TIFF size

Understood on the caveat, something else going amiss

I've just seen some tutorials on the product you mention (it's ~£49) - It's far more versatile than DPP4! Think I'll be putting my hand in pocket for this! Many thanks for your help! - Now all I need to do is work out the inverse blur function for aircraft propellers

 ChickenLegs69's gear list:ChickenLegs69's gear list
Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Olympus Tough TG-4 Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,473
Um, can I amend my answer?

Understood on the caveat, something else going amiss

I've just seen some tutorials on the product you mention (it's ~£49) - It's far more versatile than DPP4! Think I'll be putting my hand in pocket for this! Many thanks for your help! - Now all I need to do is work out the inverse blur function for aircraft propellers

Glad Affinity Photo appears to be a good option for you, and you're welcome. It is an excellent product and an excellent value.

But now I'm going to sheepishly admit that my prior post said something that in your case is arguably misleading or even incorrect. I wrote:

Affinity Photo is likely to give you 97% of the Photoshop capabilities that you'd actually use ....

The problem with my prior statement is that it assumes that few people use Photoshop for raw conversion, which is probably true today because almost anyone with Photoshop also has Lightroom. But you still need a raw converter, Photoshop would give you the quite-capable Adobe Camera Raw, and unfortunately raw conversion is Affinity Photo's greatest weakness. To put it bluntly, Affinity Photo's raw conversion module is fairly rudimentary and has frustrating limitations. I almost always use DxO PhotoLab or Lightroom to perform the raw conversion before using Affinity Photo for pixel editing.

So although I think you may well get excellent use and excellent value from Affinity Photo, I'm less convinced that in your use it will or should replace DPP and/or some other raw converter.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
OP ChickenLegs69 Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Um, can I amend my answer?

Got it, cheers 

 ChickenLegs69's gear list:ChickenLegs69's gear list
Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Olympus Tough TG-4 Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads