CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I agree completely and simply want to restate for clarity. Even old DSLRs like an EOS Rebel XTi created 12-bit RAW files at 10.1MP (3888x2592). Old like circa 2007. As noted, the single greatest 'loss' of image data occurred at the conversion of the RAW sensor data into an 8-bit JPEG. Worrying about ongoing 'loss' from editing the JPEGs is unnecessary. Moreover, converting that 8-bit JPEG to a 16-bit TIFF does not magically restore all that data lost during the JPEG conversion. That 12-bit or 14-bit data from the digital sensor is gone forever; the 16-bit TIFF just holds 'empty' storage of the 8-bit JPEG in an uncompressed format, like your 2-car garage with no cars inside.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

8 bits is 8 bits. Unless you use an extreme compression algorithm you won’t see any difference. Nothing is automatically “discarded” when going from 8 bit TIFF to JPEG.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It depends on JPEG compression. A JPEG at 100% quality you won’t see any difference.

therwol Loc: USA

Who in the world would do that? Wait, never mind.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'd speculate the entire TIFF-espousing UHH community ....

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

JPEG works by creating redundancy in the original data through the alteration of that original data. As the original data is changed it's original state is lost, "discarded", and cannot be recovered or restored. JPEG as such degrades original image data at all JPEG quality settings automatically.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Converting an 8 bit JPEG to a 16 bit TIFF prior to editing can help, albeit only slightly, if the editing will entail large changes to the image's tone/color. The larger working space provides slight benefit. It doesn't do what many however think it does.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

That's what I was surmising.....
(I always save JPEGs at 100% quality.)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

You’re shooting in raw and editing that raw file. Don’t think about as what you should “save” the photo as. You save the raw file and all of the edit info. You export as JPEG, but don’t think of this exported JPEG as your saved copy. The can export again at any time and you should export based on planned use. If you’re exporting for digital display there’s no reason to export at a higher resolution than the display resolution. (Check Paul’s thread on resizing for digital display,
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-512745-1.html
). If you’re exporting to send to a printer you probably want a full resolution export.
When I was sending stuff out to be printed for my club competitions I would have three exports, the upload to my club for submission, max of 1400px wide and 1050px tall, one for general social media posting, email, texting, etc. at 2048px wide and a full resolution JPEG for the printer. Now I just do the first two since I print my own and I print from Lightroom. Now you might think I’m printing a 16 bit file, but Lightroom converts to 8 bits when it sends to the printer. Even if a printing company accepts 16 bit TIFF’s they prefer JPEG’s. Chances are they’re being printed at 8 bits and they’d rather not deal with those big files.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Yes, the idea that converting an 8 bit file to 16 bits gives you more “headroom” for editing is a myth. The only reason to use a TIFF is if you’re editing a raw file and send it to a plugin. Even now more plugins are using DNG files. Or if you’re doing some sort of merge with 16 bit files or building a composite and want to use an 8 bit file. To work all the files need the same bit depth and colorspace.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So glad I simply edit RAW and save as JPEG.

No worries about files or bits, or ...
Just edit & save.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Yes, but it depends on the level of compression and doesn’t compare with the amount of data that gets discarded when going from 16 bits to 8. You would be hard pressed to find any difference between a JPEG saved at 100% and an 8 bit TIFF.

MJPerini

TFF vs Jpeg
If you shoot RAW, generally you do so because you want the greatest flexibility in editing your picture.
Best practice for maximum technical quality is to shoot RAW in a Large Gamut Color space , Edit in an editor that preserves that space, and when you are done , Output the file in a form appropriate to its use.
If the destination is the WEB it needs to be a JPEG, what you see on your display is a JPEG.
JPEGs were designed for efficiency. The process was "How much data can we remove before we see degradation in quality. They did a fantastic job, JPEGs Look great while throwing away 60-80% of the data. They made pictures on the web POSSIBLE.
The same image may have several possible destinations, a casual email, an on line photo gallery , or a Fine print on a wide Gamut printer.
The workflow I described preserves and allows all of that. So we should not think of one format as BETTER than the other but which is appropriate for each intended use.
JPEGs are not as robust a format in that in repeated editing and saving cycles your file gets re -compressed.
Jpegs are an 8 bit color space with lossy compression.
The library of Congress archives in TIFFs usually 16bit because it is a durable uncompressed format.
The best wide gamut photo printers have printable gamuts that are larger than computer display gamuts.
So if you want the best prints possible you want a 16b TIFF file, even though that file will look the same as the JPEG version on most displays.
Finally professional photographers may sell the same image man times over the years and will want to preserve every bit of data for two reasons -to be able to output the most appropriate version for the intended purpose, and also, as technology advances, you may be able to reinterpret either a RAW file or a lossless 16Bit TIFF with new tech.
This is a long answer, but it also depends on the desire and intent of the photographer. An avid Amateur photographer can absolutely have an all JPEG workflow, because the limitations I mentioned simply do not matter to them, the JPEGs are good enough and easy
If you want high end prints then a workflow that preserves maximum data from capture to editing to final output, gives you the best chance - that means only use the sRGB 8 bit color space as a final output for making JPEGs and using a wider color space for editing.. If you set your camera to sRGB you are limited to that forever,

If your workflow is say Lightroom where original RAW files are incorporated by reference and your camera is set to ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB 1989 and you have solid backups, there is no need to make TIFFs unless you need them for printing or for a client. (16Bit TIFFs take up lots of space) you just make whatever you need.

I hope this helps a bit

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Depends entirely on what you are going to do with the image. .jpeg refers to a file type where image data is compressed with the JPEG algorithm to reduce the size files for publishing digital images either by print or viewing.

Quoted from the introduction of the Wikipedia article:

JPEG (short for Joint Photographic Experts Group) is a commonly used method of lossy compression for digital images, particularly for those images produced by digital photography. The degree of compression can be adjusted, allowing a selectable tradeoff between storage size and image quality. JPEG typically achieves 10:1 compression with little perceptible loss in image quality. Since its introduction in 1992, JPEG has been the most widely used image compression standard in the world, and the most widely used digital image format, with several billion JPEG images produced every day as of 2015.

It compresses 8 bit image data because that exceeds the capability of commonly used monitors and printers. However, jpeg compressed image are not intended for further editing. Lossless compressed TIFF formatted data is useful for storing data intended for further editing and specialized monitors or printing.

If you are publishing the photos via the internet you use jpeg because your viewers wouldn’t know what to do with a tiff. BTW It is unlikely that your viewers are using a calibrated monitor so calibrating your monitor doesn’t help them any way.

TIFF (or PSD) are necessary for further editing at a later time but are much larger to save or send over the internet. Some high end labs can accept tiff files for printing but I don’t know if the final print is worth the cost.

therwol Loc: USA

I have never produced a tiff in a camera. I see no advantage over RAW, especially if a tiff is 8 bit. I have thousands of 16 bit tiffs produced by a scanner, the best option for editing offered by my scanner. That's it. Different situation.