Why do so many of you save as JPEG instead of TIFF? (Page 9): My understanding of this is that when an image is converted to a JPEG representation there there are FFT transforms...

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

PGHphoto wrote:

Defragmentation does nothing to degrade any data i... (show quote)

My understanding of this is that when an image is converted to a JPEG representation there there are FFT transforms applied to blocks of data and there may be some small amount of numeric noise introduced in that process. The actual blocking process introduces some errors as well. These losses are unavoidable. There are also some intentional losses of data introduced for file compression by dropping some of the high frequency data but if the user specifies no compression then this intentional loss should be avoided. But the numeric noise and the blocking noise will still be there, even with zero compression.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

jerryc41 wrote:

Theoretically, a JPEG degrades every time it is opened, modified, and saved. I tried over 100 edits to a photo, and the last one looked as good as the first, so I'm not concerned about degradation.

As for JEPG over TIFF, in my case, it's just habit. JPEGs are much smaller than TIFFs, and I have the raw files if I need them.

That’s my thinking as well JPEG edit save print 8x10 and 11x14 frameand enjoy!😁

blackest Loc: Ireland

rehess wrote:

I give up. You insist on a pattern no sane person would follow. You are correct that any person following that insane path would cause harm, but that is true of most actions by an insane person.

I have nothing further to say on this subject.

Even saving every 5 minutes what is saved is the work space not the jpeg. You would have to load app load photo, save photo close app... reopen app .. to degrade.

normally its load app load photo
save work space to jpeg repeat to suit, there is no reload of the jpeg so nothing to degrade.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Delderby wrote:

After opening the JPG, do you save it or do you simply close it? If you save it you will degrade. If you just close it you will not.

Since you quoted my comments on page 1 when asking your question, I'll reply here:

No editing software I've ever used allowed a "save" if no changes are made. The "save" command is grayed out. So the choices are limited to:

1. open, admire

close
2. open, edit, save, close
3. open, edit, "save as" different file, close
4. open, "save as" (without editing) then close - though I can't think of a good reason for this off-hand.

But since I've been working in raw for past couple of years, I don't do much editing on jpg's.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

rehess wrote:

Yes, but what the OP seems to be asking about is the final product. The OP seems to think that JPEG files are like slides - each viewing diminishes it a bit

Slides diminish a bit every time you look at them????

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

speters wrote:

Slides diminish a bit every time you look at them????

Passing a powerful beam of light through them causes a small amount fading each time. There is no similar phenomenon with a digital file.

added: With slides I shot two of each scene, or a made a duplicate later for projection purposes. The duplicate, of course, suffered from the same issues any analog copy did. I avoid all that in digital, where a true copy is an exact copy, and simply opening for reading only causes no degradation.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rehess wrote:

Passing a powerful beam of light through them causes a small amount fading each time. There is no similar phenomenon with a digital file.

Actually, prints have the same issues. My Mother hung all original artwork so bleaching light of the sun would never touch it. The home of Abraham Lincoln goes a step further - heavy drapes are always closed, lights are low, and flash is absolutely forbidden, because they want the colors of their original materials to last as long as possible.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

speters wrote:

Slides diminish a bit every time you look at them????

Yours might or some that you have seen, but I have seen some slides that were about over 20 years old that were photographed using a macro lens and then processed in the usual way in the PC and they are as sharp as can be. Could it be the film that was used for taking the slides that was of good quality?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Heather Iles wrote:

Yours might or some that you have seen, but I have seen some slides that were about over 20 years old that were photographed using a macro lens and then processed in the usual way in the PC and they are as sharp as can be. Could it be the film that was used for taking the slides that was of good quality?

Kodak did experiments which showed fading for all their films ... including color negative. Kodachrome was the best for dark storage, and Ektachrome was best for projection, but everything would eventually fade, and shift colors because different colors faded differently.

BebuLamar

The JPEG is much smaller than TIFF especially 16 bit TIFF. If you just view or print the JPEG and the TIFF files as is without any modification I don't think you can tell the different. Besides when someone attempts to modify my JPEG it would degrade and I want it that way because I don't want anyone to modify my image.

joel.photography

par4fore wrote:

JPEG degrades every time it is opened? Degrades when opened in a photo editor but not in a viewer right?
Tiff files are huge and everyone has different needs!

That one's been around a hundred years.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

rehess wrote:

Kodak did experiments which showed fading for all their films ... including color negative. Kodachrome was the best for dark storage, and Ektachrome was best for projection, but everything would eventually fade, and shift colors because different colors faded differently.

Of course, reds are the first to fade - in any medium, including fabrics. Reds (pigment or dye) can also bleed and spread into adjacent colours.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

rehess wrote:

Passing a powerful beam of light through them causes a small amount fading each time. There is no similar phenomenon with a digital file.

added: With slides I shot two of each scene, or a made a duplicate later for projection purposes. The duplicate, of course, suffered from the same issues any analog copy did. I avoid all that in digital, where a true copy is an exact copy, and simply opening for reading only causes no degradation.

I have 30 to 40 year old slides that I projected hundreds of times, they're still looking as new as they did back then when I shot them!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

speters wrote:

I have 30 to 40 year old slides that I projected hundreds of times, they're still looking as new as they did back then when I shot them!

All I know is what Kodak was saying 30+ years ago - they were estimating 100 years for Kodachrome and 50 years for Ektachrome in dark storage; I don't remember the exact numbers for projecting, but Ektachrome was better there {and no, I don't remember how much had to be lost before they said it counted}.