Tiff vs. Jpeg

[mn shutterbug]

What is the advantage of shooting Tiffs instead of Jpegs? I have never shot in Tiff because it uses so much more space. There has to be some advantage.

[Didache]

Basically, Jpegs are "lossy" files and tiffs are not. This is because Jpegs are compressed (hence the fact that they take up less space). In practical terms, it means that every time you save a Jpeg you lose a little quality (a bit like photocopying a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy ...). On the other hand, tiffs can be saved and resaved without any loss of quality.

If you are happy just to print out your pictures without much post-production then, by all means, stick with Jpegs. If you do a lot of fiddling (and resaving) on the computer, then you are better off with tiffs.

The compromise solution is to shoot in jpeg, but then convert it to a tiff before you work on it. That way you pretty well get the best of both worlds.

Hope this helps
Mike

[mn shutterbug]

The compromise solution is to shoot in jpeg, but then convert it to a tiff before you work on it. That way you pretty well get the best of both worlds.

Hope this helps
Mike

Yes, it helps. I do remember reading about the loss in quality every time you resave a jpeg, but had forgot all about it. Your compromise makes a lot of sense. Either that, or make sure you get all your post processing done at one time, so you only have to resave once.

Thanks again Mike.

[StreetDoc]

jpegs are 8 bit, Tiffs are 12 or 14 I believe

[another view]

TIFF files can be 8 or 16 bit, but how does your camera shoot them? Probably only at 8 bit, so no advantage to shooting them over jpeg. TIFF is lossless but at the highest quality setting you shouldn't have any problem with jpeg. Jpegs are 8 bit files by definition. Set the white balance ahead of time and in a commercial setting this might be the best choice to use since it's effecient thru the workflow (assuming the files right out of the camera are problem free). If you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of shooting TIFF files...

RAW, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. Probably uses slightly less space on the memory card than a TIFF file, it usually will be a 12 bit file (16 bit file but cameras only capture at 12 bit) which is exponentially more information than an 8 bit file. Also with RAW, you have the option of setting your white balance later among other advantages. The disadvantage is that it takes more time to do it (although 30 seconds in the RAW converter should be more than enough).

[freygr]

I have TIFF files on my computer that are much smaller than the same image in JPG. OK I'm cheating there are line drawings. What you need to ask is this batch of photos going to be heavy edited, are you going to submit them for stock photos? If you answer yes then you need to use RAW or the TIFF setting and the highest resolution setting of your camera.

[rovowen]

Newbie question here, I usually shot in jpeg, but also use Raw.
My question is. If I shoot in Jpeg and save to my computer in Jpeg.
I open the photo in Corel PSP or CS3, edit the picture and then when
I'm ready to save. I use, "save as" then use a different name to save
the file. I never use the save function, mainly because I'm new and
never sure what all I have done to the photo.
By doing this, do I degrade the orginal, since I never save back to it?

[another view]

By doing this, do I degrade the orginal, since I never save back to it?

Yes and no. This actually would be a good thread in it's own right.

Let me explain - but bottom line, you're doing it right.

Yes, you will damage the file a little bit because every time you save a jpeg you will compress it a bit (that's how a jpeg file works). Eventually compression will be noticable but it takes more than a couple of times for that to happen (in my experience). In Photoshop, when you save as a jpeg you'll get a window that will pop up and ask what quality or level you want, can't remember exactly what it's called. On Photoshop CS, there's a slider that goes from 1 to 12; the higher the number the higher the quality (and less compression). If you resave, use the highest quality setting to avoid/reduce the possibility of damage.

Keep doing it this way and preserve the original image file, as long as you have the space to do it. This way, you still have the original so you can go back and make changes to it if needed rather than editing a re-saved file again and again (eventually you may run into a problem doing it that way due to compression and other things).

If you're new to Photoshop and image editing, your skills will improve with time. You might come back to that special shot a year or two later and get a much better final image than you can today, and if you have the original file to work from the end result will be just that much better.

[freygr]

Newbie question here, I usually shot in jpeg, but also use Raw.
clip...
By doing this, do I degrade the orginal, since I never save back to it?

You can copy, view, and move any file without degrading. The problem with JPGs is you open the file, if you save the file you overwrite the original and the JPG compression throws out more information as it is a lossy compression as it's recompressing the file. At the higher compression settings the JPG image degrades very fast. I've heard some say they can tell the difference only after two views and saves cycles!

[jacobyja53]

By doing this, do I degrade the orginal, since I never save back to it?

As others have stated here, you're doing the right thing. In my opinion, you should always treat your original like a negative - preserve it as it came off the camera. If you use a Windows computer, you can right-click on the file name and select properties. At the bottom of the dialog in the Attributes section, select the "read only" box. This will prevent you from accidentally overwriting your original.
Good Luck
Jim