Jpeg V Tiff?

B

Brendan J Cuffe

Out of habit more than anything else, when I download photos from my digital
camera to my pc I save the files in TIFF format. The file sizes are huge
compared to JPEG and my question is am I actually getting a better image
quality than I would do with a JPEG and minimal compression?

Brendan
 
Y

Yves Alarie

The answer is no if your camera is 3 MP or above.
But then, there is always a but, if you plan to print at a size larger than
12 x 18 (and with a very good printer) you may begin to see the difference
at edges (particularly high contrast edges).

Also, if you plan to edit an image you may want to keep it in tif until you
finish the job (although the best editing software allows you to start with
a jpg and Save as an intermediate file with no degradation until you finish
the job and save as jpg once you are done).
And, you can always batch process tif to jpg or jpg to tif with this free
software: http://www.irfanview.com/ when you need. So saving as jpg is
easier.

If you want to see for yourself, you can do the following experiment:

The first point is, every time you "Save as" a jpg there is a little loss
and artifacts introduced, so if you edit a picture and you Save as many
time, there is some degradation with each Save as, but not with Save if you
use Save to save your changes as you are editing(even if you don't do
anything to the picture and you Save as just to change the name of the file,
it is the Save as that is the problem). So if you plan to edit the file many
times, keep it in tif until done and then save it as jpg. Since you can
always saved it back as tif for further editing, no problem.
The second point is, can you see the difference? Only you can tell, no
amount of info will convince you. So you do the experiment yourself. It has
been done many times. Here is how to do it.
Take one of your jpg file, right click on it and click on Copy. Hold the
Ctrl key down and press the letter V. This will make a new file in your
folder "Copy of filename.jpg (note there is no degradation when you do this,
since you don't open the file and Save as, you only copied it). Now.
1. Open this file in your photo editor and Save as. Give it the name Copy of
filename 1.jpg
2. Open Copy of filename 1.jpg, Save as and change 1 to 2.
3. Continue doing this until you Save as this file 15 times.
The first point is, every time you "Save as" a jpg there is a little loss
and artifacts introduced, so if you edit a picture and you Save as many
time, there is some degradation with each Save as, but not with Save if you
use Save to save your changes as you are editing(even if you don't do
anything to the picture and you Save as just to change the name of the file,
it is the Save as that is the problem). So if you plan to edit the file many
times, keep it in tif until done and then save it as jpg. Since you can
always saved it back as tif for further editing, no problem.
The second point is, can you see the difference? Only you can tell, no
amount of info will convince you. So you do the experiment yourself. It has
been done many times. Here is how to do it.
Take one of your jpg file, right click on it and click on Copy. Hold the
Ctrl key down and press the letter V. This will make a new file in your
folder "Copy of filename.jpg (note there is no degradation when you do this,
since you don't open the file and Save as, you only copied it). Now.
1. Open this file in your photo editor and Save as. Give it the name Copy of
filename 1.jpg
2. Open Copy of filename 1.jpg, Save as and change 1 to 2.
3. Continue doing this until you Save as this file 15 times.
Then you can start opening them and look at them on your screen, when do you
begin to see degradation? Can't see it yet, keep going to 25.
But the real test is not seeing on your screen, you screen magnifies
everything and we don't trust you since you know the number you are looking
at.
Now, print number 1, 3, 9, 15 and 25. Print as large as your printer can
print.
Don't look at the print too closely, just place a little number in pencil on
the back of them. Then, give them to somebody and ask them to place them on
a table in a different order. Can you pick No.1? If you do, try again the
next day. Did you get it again? If you can pick No 1 consistently, then it
does make a difference. If not, no more to argue about.
Then you can ask your tif friends to pick the print they think is the best.
You may be surprised!
Give us the results a few weeks from now.

begin to see degradation? Can't see it yet, keep going to 25.
But the real test is not seeing on your screen, you screen magnifies
everything and we don't trust you since you know the number you are looking
at.
Now, print number 1, 3, 9, 15 and 25. Print as large as your printer can
print.
Don't look at the print too closely, just place a little number in pencil on
the back of them. Then, give them to somebody and ask them to place them on
a table in a different order. Can you pick No.1? If you do, try again the
next day. Did you get it again? If you can pick No 1 consistently, then it
does make a difference. If not, no more to argue about.
Then you can ask your friends to pick the print they think is the best.
You may be surprised!
 
G

Gary

Yves Alarie's explanation of finding out just how much you really benefit
(or don't) from tiff format is great, and I fully agree. But I noticed
something in your question that should be addressed.

Saving the file from your camera directly to tiff gains you nothing, except
using up a lot of storage space. The photos will never be any better (as
far as having the original data to work with) than they are copied directly
from the camera, even as a jpg. After sorting out any you're sure you don't
want, you can archive them directly to CD or ? and know that you haven't
lost a bit of the original quality.

If you then open, edit, crop, adjust, and print the file in one sitting, you
still would have gained nothing if you had converted your original jpg to a
tiff. But when finished editing and printing, if you want to save your
edited file, you will prevent any further deterioration by saving as tiff.
Unless I've done a lot of work on the file, I'll usually figure that a high
quality jpg is just as good, much smaller, and I can't see the difference.
But if you're going to open it later and work more on it, probably tiff is
the best option, at least until you're finished.

So most of us that shoot in jpg mode will just copy and archive the photos,
unaltered (or rotated upright using lossless rotation), as the original jpg
file. No matter how badly you mess up any future editing, you can always
start over with this original, and the photo retains all of the original
EXIF data which may be of some use later.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top