JPEG or TIF quality comparision: I use both Light Room and Photoshop CC. I process my raw pics and save a copy as a JPEG. I have never explored the quality difference between JPEG and...

Dana C Loc: Buhl, Idaho

I use both Light Room and Photoshop CC. I process my raw pics and save a copy as a JPEG. I have never explored the quality difference between JPEG and TIF photos after the conversion. What do you all think?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Dana C wrote:

I use both Light Room and Photoshop CC. I process my raw pics and save a copy as a JPEG. I have never explored the quality difference between JPEG and TIF photos after the conversion. What do you all think?

One of the benefits of TIFF is that it can be a 16 bit file, greater color depth.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I am one of the few that chose to use JPEG, even when taking photo's. I will take a RAW when the site lighting is in question. I have found that with the Adobe software, you ability to work with a photo and the color bands isn't as restrictive as it was a few years back.

I keep my JPEG's virgin. Meaning I don't overwrite the originals. Overwriting will Reduce the quality of the file.

I am not looking to sell or make wall photos where you might notice a difference. It again depends on what you looking to do with the photo and how much storage space you looking to purchase.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Dana C wrote:

I use both Light Room and Photoshop CC. I process my raw pics and save a copy as a JPEG. I have never explored the quality difference between JPEG and TIF photos after the conversion. What do you all think?

This has been gone over many times before. Saving in JPEG throws away information every time the file is edited and saved. TIFF is a lossless method of saving files and you can open and edit as many times as you want. It can save in 8-bit or 16-bit sizes, whereas JPEG is limited to only 8-bits.

The recommendation would be to edit and save in TIFF and only go to JPEG when you want to email or take images to your local printing place, etc.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Unless you are on the brink of running out of drive space, there's no reason to save to JPEG instead of (uncompressed) TIFF. If later you decide you need to perform additional editing, you won't be re-compressing an already compressed image file. JPEG's are for emailing and posting on internet. At any time, you can create a JPEG version from your TIFF file specifically for those purposes.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

16 bit gives you hugely expanded post processing possibilities as compared to 8 bit, be they jpgs or tiffs. Raw is better still, and considerably smaller than 16 bit tiffs.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Dana C wrote:

I use both Light Room and Photoshop CC. I process my raw pics and save a copy as a JPEG. I have never explored the quality difference between JPEG and TIF photos after the conversion. What do you all think?

Well, with PS and TIFF you can save your Adjustment Layers so you do not have to reinvent the wheel when the little lightbulb in your brain has a better way to modify the original.

You can always File->Save As-? *.jpg for other uses, but the TIFF files will stay unless you flatten the image.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I have been told that RAW is actually built on a TIFF based file. May be the opposite.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

sirlensalot wrote:

I have been told that RAW is actually built on a TIFF based file. May be the opposite.

TIFF is a raster image format. RAW is not an image format but the output of the sensor. Read on.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

TIFF is a flexible, adaptable file format for hand... (show quote)

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format

HTH

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

BobHartung wrote:

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format

HTH

I might add that there is no RAW standard. Every manufacturer decides independently what they want to store in the file. And this will vary from camera model to camera model within the same manufacturer. This is why you can be successfully using RAW with your favorite SW package and then you buy the latest camera from the same manufacturer and suddenly it doesn't load. And only an update to the SW will fix the problem. The SW needs a new set of instructions on how to read the RAW file.

But TIFF, and any other of a number of formats are standard, and don't change.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

However raws from any manufacturer can be converted to the (Adobe) standardized .dng format, which is the raw sensor data repackaged.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

RWR wrote:

One of the benefits of TIFF is that it can be a 16 bit file, greater color depth.

And thus much smoother gradients without banding.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

rook2c4 wrote:

Unless you are on the brink of running out of drive space, there's no reason to save to JPEG instead of (uncompressed) TIFF. If later you decide you need to perform additional editing, you won't be re-compressing an already compressed image file. JPEG's are for emailing and posting on internet. At any time, you can create a JPEG version from your TIFF file specifically for those purposes.

Not to highjack the thread but if you don't mind what are your thoughts on tiff as opposed to psd?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Frank2013 wrote:

Not to highjack the thread but if you don't mind what are your thoughts on tiff as opposed to psd?

This is a hijack!

PSD is proprietary to Adobe. TIFF although owned by Adobe is not.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Sorry didn't mean to offend. Just thought it was sort of relevant to the original post.

BobHartung wrote:

This is a hijack!

PSD is proprietary to Adobe. TIFF although owned by Adobe is not.