Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

I recently saw a recommendation that people should save their post processed JPEG files as TIFFS(fom Judges Camera Club). Searched this for prior UHH discussions on this and found the one quoted below. There are others I have not pursued yet.

What I usually do, is save my reworked JPEG image as another JPEG with a different file name. Is this NOT recommended?

Here's the posting:

"I do a a bit of stock photography ... not too successfully to date ... and the reviewers at one fussy firm strongly suggested "... shoot in raw, process in tiff, save in .jpg. I've done that fairly regularly, and the results please me. I shoot with a Pentax DSLR." -Jack Disbrow

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

I think you are fine. The concern with JPEG is that after repeated edits the quality of the images will degrade somewhat. Jpeg is called a "lossy" format due to this repeated compression.

One or two rounds of editing a JPEG will not make enough of a difference for 95% of us to ever notice.

TIFF is a non-lossy format - no compression and no loss of quality as it is edited repeatedly. It is also a much larger file for the same image.

The ideal format is to shoot in RAW and then save edits as you generate them in JPEG, leaving the RAW original untouched.

But for many photographers (including some professionals), shooting and Post Processing using just a high quality JPEG file format is all they need most of the time.

Personally I shoot in the raw format 95% of the time, but I do that for greater flexibility in post processing. But I also have to post processing every photograph as well. So it is not for everybody and everybody does not need or want this additional level of flexibility.

I hope this simplistic overview helps you. I don't see any reason for you to change what you are doing based on your post above.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

Not simplistic, but comprehensive for my question. I use my Canon SX30IS a lot, as it's an easy carry and gives me great results in JPEG. Also have a 60D set to both JPEG and RAW. Prefer the latter for macro and things the 30 just cannot do. Will probably get a newer "bridge" that does both too. Like the Panazonic w. constant F/2.8.

Thank you!

Nemo solis satis sapit.

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

Bang on Festina Lente

Hope I can put it in a simple way:

If you shoot in jpeg compression and quality loss has already been applied in camera. When you edit a Jpeg each time you save it extra compression and quality loss is applied every time. Eventually if you did this enough the picture quality would be really poor. Saving as Tiff or PSD format eliminates this as it is a loss less format and does not apply any compression but will result in larger file sizes.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

see an advantage in saving raw to tiff but not jpeg to tiff or even if it's possible.sometimes i save a processed raw file as a tiff,but many times i process it and print it without saving it.plus i always work from a copy.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

What you are doing is fine. File degradation begins when FileA.jpg is saved as FileA.jpg. Saving FileA.jpg as FileB.jpg or as File A1.jpg means that you are not overwriting any part of the original and degradation will be infintesimal or non-existent. One tip though, if you work in windows: Degrag frequently and set your defrag utility to over-write each empty bit space at least twice. Failing complete cleaning of the unused portions of your disk can result in a stray bit corrupting a file at a later time. My understanding is that the latest versions of MS Windows have solved this problem. Mac has no such utility; the closest thing is the disk and permissions repairs in Disk Utilities. Third party utilities for defragmenting Mac HDs are available, but the best ones require a fill size back up disk dedicated for this purpose and are very slow, sometimes requiring triple verification as files are moved.

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Sorry but this is not correct. The problem is when you save a JPEG there is a process of compression applied, it makes no difference whether you overwrite the original or not, it is the process of saving the file that creates the issue, not what you save it as.

A 'stray bit causing corruption' ??? Nope, that is not why you defrag, it is to keep the parts of your files as close to each other as possible to speed access times. Note that the Mac has no defrag utility because of the way the file system is designed, I hear from listening to Mac experts that defragging a Mac is NOT recommended and should not be done, ever.

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

I never worked with macs. I specialised in windows hardware and networking but I heared that you should not defrag a mac also.

Not only speeding up access times but defrag will help with chance of possible corruption. Like mentioned the newer versions of windows handle things much better and rarely need a defrag. If you check it will often say this drive does not need to be defragged.

The compression added to a jpeg when saved is minimal but happens with every single save of a jpeg. Even if you just open it make no changes but save it. You might be able to do this process 10 times or more before you notice any degradation but for best quality it is better to play on the safe side. Once I edit most images have layers anyway so jpeg will flatten this. I save as a psd file more often than tiff but these can only be opened in photoshop. Most graphic editing suites will handle tiff files so is a more uniform format. I will save as tiff for customers and give them high quality jpegs as well.

This subject has been covered on here many times before and CaptainC nailed the explantion back then.