Until you begin to open/edit/resave you gain nothing by merely converting a file from JPEG to TIFF. Actually, even then, you GAIN nothing by converting JPEG to TIFF, you merely LOSE nothing more by multiple resaves as TIFF. Editing and resaving JPEG to JPEG is the losssy part.
Copying files does nothing to damage them. Merely opening and closing files to view them does nothing to change them either.
Files are files. You can copy any file, RAW or otherwise, from PC to PC without damage at all, assuming you do indeed get a byte for byte copy and transfer.
Mac
Mac
Thanks a lot, so in that case I wouldn’t do any editing for the sake of time, just transfer them to the other computer as JPG, and if I have the time and do some editing, on those files then I would need to save them as TIFF right?
I would save as PSD (photoshop) files.
Ingrid, do you see an advantage to PSD over TIFF? I’ve done it both ways, but generally use TIFF because it’s what my RAW images are converted to and TIFF images are visible in some viewers that don’t understand PSD.
right.
Anytime you are going to do multiple resaves of a file, work in TIFF or PSD.
JPEG is final output only, and really no reason to use JPEG at all, except:
1. files for the web
2. files to email for viewing
And of course, it’s necessary to start with JPEG from digital cams, because of limitations of what the cam will save in, or storage media limitations.
If your camera shoots RAW and/or if you scan, there no reason to ever even USE .jpg in my opinion (except for 1 and 2 above).
And if you do need to output JPEG and later decide you need a different edited version, go back to your uncompressed TIFF or PSD, and make the new JPEG from that, not from JPEG to JPEG.
Mac
TIFF can be larger than PSD at same rez, can be MUCH larger if saving layers, and many (if not most) apps other than Adobe don’t read layered TIFF.
Other than that, TIFF is fine format. One of the industry standards that they got right the first time, sort of like ethernet 🙂
Mac
If your camera shoots RAW and/or if you scan to get your images, there no reason to ever even USE .jpg in my opinion, except for 1 and 2 above.
Mac,
Except that RAW files are a lot bigger than even the highest quality JPEGs which limits the number of shots per card and eats up (admittedly cheap) disk space. And converting the RAW images to TIFFs takes extra time and fooling around.
And then there is the question of whether the gains in image quality justify all of the above. That is something each person has to decide for himself. So, I guess I disagree with your statement above.
I think RAW is right for some people and not for others. Bert
Bert, I agree with you that using RAW is situational. I shoot in RAW when I’m thinking that I’m going to want to make some big prints; that doesn’t happen very often. I shoot in JPEG for e-mail and newsletter (small print) purposes.
And when I’m using my Canon 10D, I can do both simultaneously. The 10D has an ’embedded’ JPEG (in a preselected choice of sizes) that comes along with a RAW image; unfortunately, it’s a feature that can’t be totally turned off. The downside is that the typical RAW+embedded JPEG file is on the order of 8 MP! That chews up CF cards very quickly, but it does give me some images I can use quickly without going through the slow RAW conversion process.
Chuck
Chuck,
On my Oly E-20, RAW images are 10 MBytes. Higest quality JPEGs are between 3 and 4 MBytes. I would be willing to pay that price in some situations…where I knew I was taking a limited number of photos and was close to home for uploading…IF I saw a signiicant difference. I make 8x10s all the time from JPEGs and they look pretty good to me. Maybe I need glasses.:)
Bert
Well, I said "in my opinion", eh?
I probably should have qualified also, "for absolutely no compromise in image quality".
(and actually, I shoot JPEG in digicam all the time, for eBay pix and such).
On the third hand, I output to film some, and see a significant difference between my best JPEG and TIFF from my (now admitedly dated) digicam. Inkjet output, agreed, little if any discernable diff if editing handled correctly from a best quality JPEG original.
But again, for the best, I just shy away from JPEG every chance I get 🙂
Mac
Mac,
Yup, you did say IMO. And you are certainly right, for the best quality image, no compromises, RAW is the way to go.
You gets what you pays for….
Bert
I would just like to ask for an opinion regarding another format. I have been converting my JPEG files to PNG, and doing all my editing, etc. using those files. I like it because they are about 50% the size of PSD files. would anyone care to comment, or offer an opinion on the use of the PNG format?
would anyone care to comment, or offer an opinion on the use of the PNG format?
I don’t think they are as widely accepted as JPEGs or TIFFs. Of course PSD is a proprietary format. I’m surprised at the difference in size that you mention. I haven’t used PNGs that much, but I didn’t think they were that much different from TIFF or PSD…for single layer images. <off to run a few experiments>
Bert
