# Tiff vs jpeg?



## craig (May 22, 2004)

All of my images are saved as tiffs. As I watch my hard drive space dwindle I question this format. I have seen jpegs (I won a gift certificate once for knowing what that stood for, anyone else?) that lost information and it was not pretty. I know that the uncompressed tiff (what does that stand for?) prints beautifully and is widely accepted in the graphic arts field. Encapsolated Post Script seems to be slipping by the way side, but I sill use it to include clipping paths.

So, how are your photos archived? What are the facts?


----------



## markc (May 22, 2004)

I use TIFFs with ZIP compression. Since I'm the only one that's going to be using them, I'm not worried about compatibility outside of Photoshop. I can alway make a regular TIFF if I need to send an image out for some reason.  I only use JPEGs for web display.


----------



## craig (May 22, 2004)

That is an idea. Being a mac user I have to go LZW. The file size is cut in half. Maybe I should ask is information lost in the compression?


----------



## markc (May 22, 2004)

craig said:
			
		

> That is an idea. Being a mac user I have to go LZW. The file size is cut in half. Maybe I should ask is information lost in the compression?


Both LZW and ZIP are lossless. The only thing you lose is a little bit of time, which I don't mind at all considering the space it saves.


----------



## craig (May 22, 2004)

That is what I was waiting to hear. I will now compress.


----------



## oriecat (May 22, 2004)

craig said:
			
		

> tiff (what does that stand for?)



totally-huge image file format?


----------



## Harpper (May 23, 2004)

It would actually be better if you shot in RAW mode and then convert your files to TIFF if you need to send it to someone asking for them. The reason is that most RAW formats give better or the same results with their lossless compression than TIFF format. 

This means that RAW actually retains the same data but in a smaller file size. On some articles I've read RAW actually retained a little more data. When you save a RAW file into a TIFF you will notice that the file size actually inflates. TIFF format isn't as efficient but RAW format isn't adapted by the industry as of yet so you still have to give them TIFF files. It's understandable since RAW files are different from brand to brand and results may vary but it should still be better than TIFF when it comes to smaller size without loss in quality.

Another benefit of shooting in RAW format is that it will also speed up your read and write times because it's about half or a 3rd the size of TIFF. You can always try seeing how small the compressed TIFF file is compared to your RAW files. If they are the same then you are saving yourself a step by saving in RAW format.


----------



## markc (May 23, 2004)

I shoot in RAW, but PS 7 needs a plug-in to use it directly. Can RAW files store layers? I know PSD and TIF  files can. That's a really important aspect. I keep the RAW files as original negs, and TIFFs as working ones. I haven't done much of a comparison between TIFF and PSD, but I seem to remember that compressed TIFFs are smaller, which is why I went that route.


----------



## Artemis (May 23, 2004)

Since i know nothing,  as i be newb to images and most things, i just use jpg or giff, whatever i save it as.
JPG my favoiret, as everyone accepts that and u dont loose quality...or amy i being stupid?
p.s. what do they both stand for?


----------



## voodoocat (May 23, 2004)

yeah, you lose quality.  TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) has all the original information in the image.  JPEG removes information to make the file size smaller.  The JPEG will have a lower number of colors as well as artifacts from compression.


----------



## markc (May 23, 2004)

I think you have a typo, Voo. JPEG will have the same number of colors as an 8-bit TIFF, but does have compression artifacts. GIF has far fewer colors and should be avoided for photos. If you have to go with JPEG, as some cameras won't do RAW or TIFF, choose the highest-quality/lowest-compression available.


----------



## Harpper (May 23, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> I shoot in RAW, but PS 7 needs a plug-in to use it directly. Can RAW files store layers? I know PSD and TIF  files can. That's a really important aspect. I keep the RAW files as original negs, and TIFFs as working ones. I haven't done much of a comparison between TIFF and PSD, but I seem to remember that compressed TIFFs are smaller, which is why I went that route.


You do bring up good points. When I read craig's post I thought he was shooting in TIFF as opposed to RAW. How you archive your files would also depend on your whole process from shooting, editing, to saving. If you constantly do layer work in Photoshop and want to preserve layers then compressed TIFF would be a good choice. RAW files can't be saved as RAW in photoshop so you can't store layers. 

The reason I said it can depend on your whole photography process is because for me having a lot of PSD or TIFF files hasn't been a huge problem for me. The reason being is that a personal goal for me is to try to get my shots as accurate as I can from the camera which can save me the need for post editing in Photoshop (aside from the easily rememberable things like sharpening, borders, etc.) Although most of my work is landscape and still photography so it can be easier to take many experimental shots of the same composition so that I have a better chance to get the perfect shot. From a days worth of shooting I'll probably only use maybe 1-3 shots out of 100. If they do need Photoshop work then that's only 1-3 files so it doesn't fill up my hard drive that quickly. Although if I'm lucky enough and they don't need Photoshop work then that's roughly a 5mb file as opposed to a 40mb compressed TIFF files with some layers.

As for needing a plugin, that's also changing. The latest version of Photoshop has preinstalled RAW plugins and since digital photography and RAW files are becoming more popular I don't think they will ever drop that feature. They are also constantly updating their RAW file plugin library so your camera will be supported if it's not already. Also from what I can tell uncompressed TIFF and PSD files are about the same size so compressed TIFF files would be smaller.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

HI Jeff here nice to join you all. 

I'm giving this thread a bump and need some advice.  I shoot my pics with a NikonD100.  they RAW option is NEF which only opens in Nikon software, then can be converted to photoshop format.  i'm sure most of you already know this.


I'm looking for the most beneficial way to go about this.  I am starting a website selling photography.  what is the best way to give the customer the BEST printing image possible.


1.   I shoot the photo   (in RAW, TIFF, or Large JPEG??)

2.  I edit the photo in PS (crop, center, etc).  what file do I save it as??

3.  I print the photo.  as,  JPEG? TIff?



thanks everyone.  I look forward to hangin out with you  :thumbup::mrgreen:


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2007)

1.  RAW
2.  PSD
3.  TIFF


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

fmw said:


> 1.  RAW
> 2.  PSD
> 3.  TIFF



is there a big difference between image quailty with TIFF?  I know this question has been throw out here 100000 times, sorry.

what if I went

1. JPEG (large)
2.  PSD
3.  JPEG (large)


----------



## c_mac (Jan 25, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> is there a big difference between image quailty with TIFF?  I know this question has been throw out here 100000 times, sorry.
> 
> what if I went
> 
> ...



if you shoot Jpeg large to begin with then there wouldn't be much of a reason to convert to PSD. that is unless you add layers and the such and want to save a full version.

i know some of the cheaper places won't accept TIFF files for print. (tis why they are the cheap places) in reality though the best option would be to shoot in raw, then do whatever steps you must do in between to make it a tiff file in the end. this way you have not lost any information. the only reason i use jpegs is for web. or if i just want to make some cheap 4x6 or something.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

c_mac said:


> if you shoot Jpeg large to begin with then there wouldn't be much of a reason to convert to PSD. that is unless you add layers and the such and want to save a full version.
> 
> i know some of the cheaper places won't accept TIFF files for print. (tis why they are the cheap places) in reality though the best option would be to shoot in raw, then do whatever steps you must do in between to make it a tiff file in the end. this way you have not lost any information. the only reason i use jpegs is for web. or if i just want to make some cheap 4x6 or something.


cool.  my goal is to sell my photos.  so I want the best quality.  which I know is Tiff but I want to make sure its worth the extra storage.  I have a few thousand photos.

weird how this is the same discussion I have add with audio.  FLAC (lossless) vs mp3.   same logic applies to both


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 25, 2007)

RAW, because that's what I shoot. (Discard the worst, keep most)
PSD, if I choose to work on the image or develop it. (very few, 15 of 100)
TIFF if I want to print it (even fewer, maybe 5 out of 100 shots)
JPG if I want to post in on my blog or submit it to some website. (same)


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

so for printing a picture that will hang up on someone's wall.  TIFF is the way to go?


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> so for printing a picture that will hang up on someone's wall. TIFF is the way to go?


 
It is because it is a universally available format.  Everybody can use it.  I suggested PSD only because the file sizes are smaller.  Actually, I store everything RAW and discard everything else.  If I edit something, I finish the project.  I make a JPEG or a print or whatever then dump it.  Only the RAW file is left.  I've ordered a network attached storage unit which should be here tomorrow.  After that I may begin saving other file formats with files that I have edited.

How about those Bears, huh?


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

fmw said:


> It is because it is a universally available format.  Everybody can use it.  I suggested PSD only because the file sizes are smaller.  Actually, I store everything RAW and discard everything else.  If I edit something, I finish the project.  I make a JPEG or a print or whatever then dump it.  Only the RAW file is left.  I've ordered a network attached storage unit which should be here tomorrow.  After that I may begin saving other file formats with files that I have edited.


well I'm looking for the most practical way to take, edit, print, and store possibly thousands of photos.  can I do this as RAW(shoot and edit) and then JPEG(print and save) without loosing much quality?

remember, I am doing this as a business.  I and taking pictures, editing, printing, shipping out to customers.




fmw said:


> How about those Bears, huh?


YES how bout them SUPER BOWL bound Chicago Bears!!

hint admins: lets get a sports, or common talk section?   :greenpbl:


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

what do people think of this article?


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 25, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> what do people think of this article?
> 
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm



I saw it was from ken rockwell, and I didn't read it 



> (I won a gift certificate once for knowing what that stood for, anyone else?)



Joint Photographic Experts Group.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> I saw it was from ken rockwell, and I didn't read it


I admit im new to the photography world.  is Kenny boy a bunch of BS?


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> well I'm looking for the most practical way to take, edit, print, and store possibly thousands of photos. can I do this as RAW(shoot and edit) and then JPEG(print and save) without loosing much quality?
> 
> remember, I am doing this as a business. I and taking pictures, editing, printing, shipping out to customers.
> 
> ...


 
You can if the the people who send you images shoot them RAW.  Otherwise you will have to store them the way you received them.

I'm located about 90 miles east of Chicago and 120 miles north of Indianapolis.  We have both our "local" teams in Super Bowl 41.

I second Matt's remark about not reading Ken Rockwell.  He has a website but he is no authority on Photography.  Generally, he should be ignored.  I think you will find the people here on TPF know more about photography than Ken Rockwell.


----------



## clarinetJWD (Jan 25, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> I admit im new to the photography world.  is Kenny boy a bunch of BS?



It depends.  If you're looking for comparisons of Nikon equipment, he has one of the most comprehensive review sites on the net.  If you're looking to compare Nikon to anything els, he is so Nikon biased it isn't even funny.  When I'm looking for a new lens, that's the first place I go.

Oh, and as far as it's concerned, yes the quality of large JPEG is basically the same as uncompressed (to all but the most unbelieveably tuned eyes), but you can do SO MUCH MORE with RAW after shooting the picture.  THat to me is the important thing.

This being said, I save every RAW file, then of the keepers, a full size TIFF (printing on mpix), full size JPEG (Print Service on deviantART), small size tiff and jpeg, and a net sized jpeg.  Gets big, but hard drives are cheap these days...


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 25, 2007)

Take a jpeg and a tiff of the same file to your lab, and have big prints made.  Compare them with your own eyes.  I can't tell any difference with my photographs.  I think there are good reasons to use and save as tiff, but print quality from a finished file isn't one of them.


----------



## Fate (Jan 25, 2007)

JPEGs seem to be fine to be honest. I shoot at 12mp and save them at the higest possible quality and the print qualtiy is great.


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2007)

clarinetJWD said:


> It depends. If you're looking for comparisons of Nikon equipment, he has one of the most comprehensive review sites on the net.


 
Comprehensive possibly but not authoritative.  I don't suggest there is nothing of value on his site.  I do suggest that enough of what he says is just plain nonsense that it casts a shadow over everything he does.  Sorry, he is no expert.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

fmw said:


> Comprehensive possibly but not authoritative.  I don't suggest there is nothing of value on his site.  I do suggest that enough of what he says is just plain nonsense that it casts a shadow over everything he does.  Sorry, he is no expert.


I will take your word for it.  I have only been here a day and have learned alot.  I was just hoping someone can tell me there isnt much quality difference when shooting, editing, printing with JPEG.  :er:


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 25, 2007)

Fate said:


> JPEGs seem to be fine to be honest. I shoot at 12mp and save them at the higest possible quality and the print qualtiy is great.


well my d100 is only 6.1mp  I really am looking for justification for using and saving RAW & TIFF.  someone to say here is _why_ you should do it.


----------



## clarinetJWD (Jan 25, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> well my d100 is only 6.1mp  I really am looking for justification for using and saving RAW & TIFF.  someone to say here is _why_ you should do it.



The main reason to use tiff is if ou want to preserve layers.


----------



## Azuth (Jan 25, 2007)

It's already been said; Uncompressed TIFF is lossless. JPEG is not. 

If you open an image and save it as a JPEG, then open, edit and save it again you are introducing more loss, like a photocopy of a photocopy.



> If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It is very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use a image format that is not lossy (TIFF, BMP, PNG) for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving _within the same editing session_ won't introduce additional damage. It is only when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again.


A max quality JPEG will print fine, but there are good reasons to use a lossless format. The above is it for me.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 26, 2007)

Azuth said:


> It's already been said; Uncompressed TIFF is lossless. JPEG is not.



Compressed tiffs are lossless too.  You can choose from LZW or Zip lossless compression, and save layers in photoshop as well.  I use TIFF over psd.  A compressed tiff with layers is half the size of its equivalent PSD.


----------



## Azuth (Jan 26, 2007)

Heh Matt, I was going to include that qualification, but I forgot to write it in. It also had already been said. Though the option of JPEG compression for a TIFF file is an interesting one, I figure that isn't lossless, though I don't know that for sure.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 26, 2007)

clarinetJWD said:


> The main reason to use tiff is if ou want to preserve layers.


ok cool, so it doesnt have too much difference in quality? 

Is it worth nearly a 600% increase in file size for the tiny amount of extra quality of the TIFF?


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 26, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> well my d100 is only 6.1mp  I really am looking for justification for using and saving RAW & TIFF.  someone to say here is _why_ you should do it.



Save as raw if you ever think you'd like to re-process the photo from the beginning.  The problem with raw is that every company uses it's own (and it even changes from time to time from the same company), and you'll need to pay attention to make sure that you still have software available that will open your raw files in the future.

Save as tiff if you are worried about proprietary raw software vanishing in the future, or if you think you might be re-editing the photo in the future.

Save as high quality jpeg if you are done with the photo, and won't ever be doing anything else with it but having a lab print it, or re-sizing it smaller for web use.

I edit in the raw converter, then open the raw as a tiff to do more editing, then convert to jpeg and save for printing.  In the end I save both the jpeg and the raw, and only save the tiff if I did some very complex editing that I don't want to have to do again.  I like to start over from the beginning when I come back to a photo again in the future, because usually I've learned more digital photography skills/techniques, and can do a better job than I did in the past.  

Raw plus jpeg files together are usually about 1/2 to 2/3 the size of a 16 bit tiff.  I save a little bit of space, and I can make a tiff if needed from the raw file.

EDIT:  Something to consider, people sometimes refer to a "quality loss" between tiff and jpeg.  A much more accurate term is "information loss", which is not the same as quality.  Yes, it can affect quality, but probably not if you know what you're doing.  A huge amount of information loss occurs when we turn a file into a print, yet the quality usually remains similar.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Jan 26, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Save as raw if you ever think you'd like to re-process the photo from the beginning.  The problem with raw is that every company uses it's own (and it even changes from time to time from the same company), and you'll need to pay attention to make sure that you still have software available that will open your raw files in the future.
> 
> Save as tiff if you are worried about proprietary raw software vanishing in the future, or if you think you might be re-editing the photo in the future.
> 
> ...


great information,  thank you


----------



## highwoodhiker (Feb 4, 2007)

Chicagophotoshop said:


> cool. my goal is to sell my photos. so I want the best quality. which I know is Tiff but I want to make sure its worth the extra storage. I have a few thousand photos.


You don't necessarily need to save the Tiffs. 1)Shoot in raw. Save the raw. 2)Process as PSD. Save the PSD. 3)Convert the PSD to tiff to print. Delete the tiff. 4)For web, use jpeg compression on the PSD. (This is how I and many others do it)
If you need to print again later, convert the PSD to tiff.
Or 3)Convert the PSD to tiff, print it and then compress it. Delete the PSD 4)For web use, use jpeg compression on the tiff.(This is how many others do it)

As far as jpegs straight from the camera, the raw image gets processed by the camera and then compressed to a jpeg. There's not a whole lot of information left to process the image properly. If a person likes to do the processing part themselves then you need to start with raw and then convert it to tiff or PSD and finally jpeg if it's needed for the web. The end result will be better but it involves a lot more time and some fairly large originals to save. Jpeg from the camera is fine for those who are willing to give up some of the quality available to save all that time and storage space. 
Jpegs aren't such a bad thing. Besides the convenience of having most of the processing done by the camera, giving a ready to print file which is completely adequate for the people who believe it is completely adequate for them, jpeg conversion is a rather amazing way, if done at a reasonable quality setting, to downsize a photo to a dimension and file size that is easily sent by email or posted on the web without any noticeable loss of quality. Not noticeable enough to worry about anyway, unless you use very low quality jpeg compression. Looks like crap at full size on a monitor but that's not the way jpegs are meant to be used. Full size is for printing or making into smaller sizes for web or email and despite it's size is a small enough file to store 1000's on your computer and covert to any size you wish whenever you wish. 
Yea, jpeg is a lossy compression method. But try posting your full size raw, tiff or PSD on Flickr. Ain't gonna work. You need to use (amazing) jpeg compression to get it down to 600x800 to post it.
And one of the best ways to make noise less noticeable is to compress the original jpeg down to a modest size for viewing on the web. Another bonus for people who really don't want to mess around processing their photos.
I use raw not just because it's 'better' but because I can do the processing myself. I like that part. If digital hadn't come along, I'd spend my computer processing time in a darkroom instead. And I'd like it. Jpeg is for people who didn't like the darkroom part when we used film. And can ya blame them? It's definitely not for everyone. Just like any other hobby you could think of.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 10, 2007)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the main difference between TIFF/RAW and JPEG: Tonal range.  You're all talking about formats and compression schemes, but not the thing that is the most important.  This is where film still has the edge, and it is where RAW & TIFF still have the edge over JPEG.


----------



## markc (Feb 10, 2007)

I think that's what Voodoocat was getting at, but I misinterpreted what he said.

GIF (4 bit)- 16 levels x 3
JPG (8-bit)- 256 levels x 3 colors
8-bit TIFF - 256 levels x 3 colors
RAW (12 bit) - 4096 levels x 3 colors
16-bit TIFF - 65,536 levels x 3 colors

Converting a RAW image to anything but a 16-bit TIFF will lose tonal definition and colors. Converting to a 16-bit TIFF won't gain you any colors or change it's current tone definition, but it does give you more breathing room when you make adjustments.


----------



## kkart (Feb 11, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> I saw it was from ken rockwell, and I didn't read it



Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## Alex_B (Feb 11, 2007)

kkart said:


> Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself!



well, most of us in here had our shocking experiences with some of his articles


----------

