# Converting tiff files to high res jpg files



## nrsmw22

Hi, I am new here and needed some advice on how to convert some tiff files to high resolution jpg files.  I recently purchased my wedding photos from our professional photographer for my 10th anniversary.  I was hoping to surprise my husband with a nice photobook of our wedding pictures.  As you might know, most photobooks require uploading in jpg files, not tiff files.  So I have worked on converting them from tiff to jpg using Paint.  I have also used Picnik. 
I thought this would work out well and I could do it myself, but when I upload these pictures for the photobook the software tells me that the pictures are low resolution.  This is particularily if the pictures take up more than about 1/4 of a page (approximately larger than 5x5).
My original tiff files are about 1.6MB where my converted jpg files end up 198KB (both are 228dpi).  So what am I not doing correctly?  I know that tiff files are generally high resolution, so what is happening with my conversion that I am loosing quality?  
Thanks for your attention.


----------



## 480sparky

What 'percentage' are you saving the Jpegs at?  Most software defaults to 75-85%, and many allow you to adjust it all the way up to 100%.


----------



## Derrel

Try compressing them at FINE or "BEST" quality JPEG settings, usually 1:4 or 25 percent compression...ought to make some nice JPEGs.


----------



## clanthar

Your TIFF files are not high res. They're not even remotely close to medium res. My medium resolution (8 bit) TIFF files are 23MB. Your TIFF files are also certainly 8 bit and at 1.6MB they're likely only 800 pixels wide. The photographer who sold you those TIFF files sold you low screen res files. If you had a different understanding, as in you were getting camera originals, then you'll need to stop the check and get on the phone.

Joe


----------



## KmH

The resolution of a digital image is not the file size, like 1.6 MB and 198 KB. Those numbers are the file size, but file size does affect image quality, particularly for printing.

The resolution is the pixel dimensions, like the 800 pixels wide that Joe suggested.

It is the pixel dimensions that are causing the software to tell you the photos are low resolution.

The PPI (not DPI by the way) simply defines the size of the photo. At 228 PPI and 800 pixels wide the photo would be: 800 pixels divided by 228 PPI = 3.5 inches wide.

The same photo at 100 PPI would be: 800 pixels divided by 100 PPI = 8 inches wide.

One last note: the 1:4 JPEG compression yields a JPEG file approximately 1/4th the size of the original, if the quality setting is at 100% (level 12).


----------



## nrsmw22

Can you tell I am a point-and-shoot user?  This is all quite new information for me, so I am trying to absorb the feedback.  Thank you.  Like sparky advised, I tried to save through Picnik to 100%, but it didn't improve the pixelation (is that the right word?).  It still remained low resolution.  Regarding the purchase from my photographer, the transaction included "release of everything" which included the proofs, the negatives and a CD with our favorite photos (the CD that I am using).  Would transferring the negatives to a new CD perhaps help with this resolution issue?  I am not sure.  

When I access my files, one of my tif files shows these properties:
dimensions 768x768 pixels (width and height)
resolution 228 dpi (and yes it says dpi, not ppi, so I am not sure what the dpi means, can you help translate what that means?) (horizonal and vertical)
bit depth 24
compression uncompressed
resolution unit 2

The same file converted gives me the exact same properties.  So please tell me, are these files the same resolution?  If so, do I have a medium quality resolution tif file and should I be contacting my photographer about the quality of these files?  I might need to add that these were photos taken 10 years ago, so I am assuming that things have changed with resolution in the last 10 years.  There have been many photo advances, but I am not sure if I should or should not be expecting something that I do or do not have.
Thanks for keeping it simple!


----------



## clanthar

nrsmw22 said:


> Can you tell I am a point-and-shoot user?  This is all quite new information for me, so I am trying to absorb the feedback.  Thank you.  Like sparky advised, I tried to save through Picnik to 100%, but it didn't improve the pixelation (is that the right word?).  It still remained low resolution.  Regarding the purchase from my photographer, the transaction included "release of everything" which included the proofs, the negatives and a CD with our favorite photos (the CD that I am using).  Would transferring the negatives to a new CD perhaps help with this resolution issue?  I am not sure.
> 
> When I access my files, one of my tif files shows these properties:
> dimensions 768x768 pixels (width and height)
> resolution 228 dpi (and yes it says dpi, not ppi, so I am not sure what the dpi means, can you help translate what that means?) (horizonal and vertical)
> bit depth 24
> compression uncompressed
> resolution unit 2
> 
> The same file converted gives me the exact same properties.  So please tell me, are these files the same resolution?  If so, do I have a medium quality resolution tif file and should I be contacting my photographer about the quality of these files?  I might need to add that these were photos taken 10 years ago, so I am assuming that things have changed with resolution in the last 10 years.  There have been many photo advances, but I am not sure if I should or should not be expecting something that I do or do not have.
> Thanks for keeping it simple!



Remove all thoughts of DPI, PPI and resolution from your head. BOTTOM LINE: Your photos are 768 pixels square -- about 800 pixels as I assumed.

A decent digital camera from a decade ago would have taken photos about 3000 x 2000 pixels. When I got started using digital cameras back in 1992 my prehistoric camera took photos that were about 1600 x 1100 pixels -- compare that with what you've got. A prehistoric camera from 1992 was taking photos that were twice the size of what you've got. Today my pocket camera (point-n-shoot) takes photos that are 3648 x 2736 pixels, my pro camera's photos are much larger.

If I wanted to make a decent resolution print from a photo from my pocket camera I could print at 200 DPI -- I'd get a 16 x 20 inch print. At the same 200 DPI the files you've got would make a 3 x 5 inch print. Do the math; your photos have only 5% of the content that I get from my pocket camera.

Stop the check and call the photographer. He sold you files that at best can make 3 x 5 inch prints. You can't change that. The content that isn't there can't be invented out of what isn't there. Software can't make up the difference. Stop the check and call the photographer.

Take Care,
Joe


----------



## mc_hudd

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I don't think "stopping the check" is an option.  If these were taken 10 yrs. ago, that check has long been cashed.  

You say you got "..."release of everything" which included the proofs, the _negatives _ and a CD with our favorite photos..." so I'm assuming these were taken w/ a film camera & later scanned to be put on a CD.  I'm not very good @ the whole resolution thing, but I'm thinking this may have something to do w/ your problem.

Good luck, hope you figure out a solution!!!


----------



## nrsmw22

Yes, he has cashed the check, but I do have contact with him.  He is a master photographer and obviously knows what he is doing, not some family member who dabbled in photography.  Either way, I likely don't have time to get the gift ready in time for what my intentions were.  I purchased some type of low resolution file.  I do at the very least, have the originals in my posession.  Regarding getting the larger files, I will certainly find out how I can get the higher quality original CD.  I will just keep working on it.
Is there anything I can do with the negatives to make jpg files?


----------



## clanthar

Your original post says you "recently" purchased these photos. I assumed that after 10 years you spent additional money to get the camera originals on a CD.

Woah! All along I was assuming your wedding photos were originally digital. You have negatives! You have the film. Your wedding was photographed with a film camera and you've got the actual film originals -- right?

OK, the digital files on the CD are very small and will not make prints larger than 2 x 4 to 3 x 5 inches. At 800 pixels they are meant for email and viewing on a computer display at about half the size of the display. Converting them from TIFF to JPEG is easy, but it won't make them any bigger and so print size will remain very limited.

But you have the film. The film can be scanned at a much higher resolution sufficient to make the prints you want. That's the good news. You have what you need in the way of original images. Scanning the film is the bad news. You'll have to have that done which will take some time and of course cost. Here's a company that does scanning and charges $0.75 per 35mm negative to scan 3000 dpi files. 35mm Slide, Negative, & Transparency Scanning Service, 110/16mm, 126, 127, 120/220, & 4x5 Scanning, Custom DVD Slideshows  There's probably a lab or camera store in your local area that offers the service. You need to be able to specify what you want. I've just assumed your negatives are 35mm -- they may be larger.

Joe


----------



## nrsmw22

Excellent Joe. Yes, I made the investment for my anniversary.  As the time is nearing, I know that I won't get my project done in time, but knowing that the purchase of the negatives was a wise investment makes me feel so much better.  We have a great camera shop in my area, so I will be taking those to be processed into digital.  Some of the negatives are 35mm, I recognize these.  Some are larger width film.


----------



## clanthar

Got it. One more missing piece of info -- I'll assume your negatives are color. In which case you must not delay having them scanned. Get all the negatives you want to preserve scanned right away. For the 35mm negatives 3000 dpi. will give you files that can produce a high quality 11 x 14 print. 2000 dpi for an 8 x 10 print. The larger negatives can be scanned at slightly lower res for the same results. 1200 dpi for an 8 x 10 print and 1600 dpi for an 11 x 14 print.

After 10 years the color dyes in those negatives have already faded. Fair to assume they were well stored and so the fading is minimal now. You should still get good quality scans from them and any fading that has occurred should be correctable. But the clock is ticking on this one. With each passing year it will become increasingly difficult to recover good images from those negs. At 10 years you've already crossed the half way point. I don't want to scare you, but color negs have a limited life. You made an investment purchase to have those photos for a long time to come. Your investment will be worthless if you don't follow through with those scans.

Joe

Joe


----------



## nrsmw22

Thanks for the advice.  I will get them to the camera shop this weekend!


----------



## fujimukazu

Hi , 
I am new to printing learning.Learning though a lot through expert opinions. But i have 1 major questions which is confusing me 
1) When I go for printing 4x6 photos , the vendor says his software wont accept TIFF. Actually he is lying and the only reason is that the files are big and slows down the printing process.But I dont want to give JPEG because it too small. How can I increase the resolution or PPI of the jpegs so they are not as large as TIFF but as good in picture quality as TIFF.


----------



## MTVision

fujimukazu said:
			
		

> Hi ,
> I am new to printing learning.Learning though a lot through expert opinions. But i have 1 major questions which is confusing me
> 1) When I go for printing 4x6 photos , the vendor says his software wont accept TIFF. Actually he is lying and the only reason is that the files are big and slows down the printing process.But I dont want to give JPEG because it too small. How can I increase the resolution or PPI of the jpegs so they are not as large as TIFF but as good in picture quality as TIFF.



What is the resolution at for your JPEGS?


----------



## KmH

fujimukazu said:


> Hi ,
> I am new to printing learning.Learning though a lot through expert opinions. But i have 1 major questions which is confusing me
> 1) When I go for printing 4x6 photos , the vendor says his software wont accept TIFF. Actually he is lying and the only reason is that the files are big and slows down the printing process.But I dont want to give JPEG because it too small. How can I increase the resolution or PPI of the jpegs so they are not as large as TIFF but as good in picture quality as TIFF.


What brand and model of print making machine does your print vendor use?

What are the pixel dimensions (the resolution) of the photos you want to print? A human cannot see the difference between a print made froma TIFF file and a JPEG that was saved at a high quality setting.

Increasing the PPI just makes the final print smaller.

I am afraid you don't quite understand how all the numbers, like resolution and ppi, relate to file type and making prints.


----------

