What is the best format to photograph in?

[Frank Martin]

I have been advised to use "tiff" for
permanence but these files are very large
indeed (eg 25mb each).

Sometimes I have to take about 100 photos in
a session, so this can result in storage
problems.

Is it possible to take the photos in "jpeg"
in the field, then download these to the
computer, and THEN convert them all to
"tiff"? Would this have the same effect?

Similarly, would it matter if I operated on
the "tiff" files (rotating the image,
photoshopping, adding typed annotations etc)
and THEN converting to "tiff" for permanent
storage?

Please help, Frank

 

[Michael J. Mahon]

I have been advised to use "tiff" for
permanence but these files are very large
indeed (eg 25mb each).

If you're not a professional photographer, you can
pretty well forget about TIFF format. Moderate
compression JPEG files (10:1 or less) do an excellent
job of preserving *relevant* photographic information
and are perfectly satisfactory for most needs.

Sometimes I have to take about 100 photos in
a session, so this can result in storage
problems.

Using .jpg format will cure your space problems.

Is it possible to take the photos in "jpeg"
in the field, then download these to the
computer, and THEN convert them all to
"tiff"? Would this have the same effect?

No, once a picture is compressed with a lossy
compression method, the information cannot be
reconstituted. However, as noted above, unless
you have a truly unusual application, .jpg files
will preserve all the detail you want.

If you have doubts, try taking the same picture
saved as a .tif and as a .jpg, then display
them both side by side at 100% and see if the
differences are important. I think you'll find
that they are insignificant in almost every case.

Similarly, would it matter if I operated on
the "tiff" files (rotating the image,
photoshopping, adding typed annotations etc)
and THEN converting to "tiff" for permanent
storage?

Forget about .tif. First, never overwrite your
original .jpg files, so you can always start over
with the originally recorded detail.

Second, if you want to do separate "enhancement"
sessions in Photoshop, save the file in Photoshops
native .psd format--it retains everything, including
your layers, masks, history, etc.

Once you are satisfied with a photo and want to add
it to your "collection", save it as a moderately
compressed .jpg again (quality 8 or more in Photoshop).

Purists will argue that you should record everything
in TIFF or RAW mode, but if you're not a professional
photographer, this is gilding the lily.

-michael


Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."

 

[Frank Martin]

message

If you're not a professional photographer,
you can
pretty well forget about TIFF format.
Moderate
compression JPEG files (10:1 or less) do an
excellent
job of preserving *relevant* photographic
information
and are perfectly satisfactory for most
needs.


Using .jpg format will cure your space
problems.


No, once a picture is compressed with a
lossy
compression method, the information cannot
be
reconstituted. However, as noted above,
unless
you have a truly unusual application, .jpg
files
will preserve all the detail you want.

If you have doubts, try taking the same
picture
saved as a .tif and as a .jpg, then display
them both side by side at 100% and see if
the
differences are important. I think you'll
find
that they are insignificant in almost every
case.


Forget about .tif. First, never overwrite
your
original .jpg files, so you can always
start over
with the originally recorded detail.

Second, if you want to do separate
"enhancement"
sessions in Photoshop, save the file in
Photoshops
native .psd format--it retains everything,
including
your layers, masks, history, etc.

Once you are satisfied with a photo and
want to add
it to your "collection", save it as a
moderately
compressed .jpg again (quality 8 or more in
Photoshop).

Purists will argue that you should record
everything
in TIFF or RAW mode, but if you're not a
professional
photographer, this is gilding the lily.

-michael


Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important
design
tool--and it's seriously underused."

Thanks. The photos I take with the camera
are pretty good for detail when I use the max
size (3200 x 2400) which have a size of
1500Kb each. Even without a tripod.

 

[Yves Alarie]

This is what you wrote:

"The photos I take with the camera
are pretty good for detail when I use the max
size (3200 x 2400) which have a size of
1500Kb each. Even without a tripod."

Although I do not know what kind of camera you have, this does not look
right to me.
If the size is indeed 3200 x 2400, the JPG file size should be at least 5000
KB if you set the camera recording for the highest quality JPG compression.

 

[Tom from WI]

I have an 8 megapixel Canon Digital Rebel. The highest quality jpg files are
usually around 3.9MB.
Tom

 

[Yves Alarie]

Yes. 4 MB makes sense. Each manufacturer implements compression differently
so 4 to 5 MB would be about right and 1.5 MB is much too low, did not make
sense to me. So I wanted to alert him to check the settings. Just hope he
comes back and get our messages!

 

[Frank Martin]

Thanks
I did check and the camera setting was on
"1/12" compression setting.

I fixed this and now it only compresses to
"1/4" which gives a jpeg file size of about
4Mb.
Regards.

message

 

[Yves Alarie]

Yes, this makes sense.
Michael Mahon gave some advice. I agree with him on what he said.
Now you have your settings for the highest quality JPG. You should see a big
difference.
Don't worry about TIF vs JPG, as long as you have the higest quality JPG
compression you will be doing just fine.