flashbang

Is there any advantage to saving a jpeg image as a TIFF? About 99% of my professional work is used solely on line and is never printed. In fact just about the only printing I have done are occasional vacation/personal snapshots with a rare 8x10 or 11x14 as a gift. So far, I only shoot jpegs.

Further more, most of my pro work is in the corporate field and is pretty much one -off: used for a single occasion and done. I keep it all on file, in case a client needs future copies. I seem to remember being told to save everything in TIFF format, but so far, have not seen any reason to do so.

Am I missing something here?

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

Saving a jpeg to a tiff, for me, happens when I get an original in jpeg and want to post process it. By saving in tiff, I avoid any subsequent PP sessions being re-compressed with more loss of data. I will provide copies in jpeg from the finished tiff files to clients in whatever resolution required.

I also keep original files, processed files and sent files in storage. I have had to revisit old archived files, but rarely. In those instances, I have been glad that I did save all versions.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What did the files start as? If you shoot in JPEG, no, then converting the JPEG to a TIFF just creates larger versions of what had been the compressed JPEG. The image doesn't improve, you just end up taking more diskspace. And, no one is going to want you attaching TIFF files online nor sending them as attachments.

If you use multiple edit software where an image file is passed between the software, here TIFF in 16-bit and AdobeRGB is a better choice (if the original image JPEG was captured in AdobeRGB). Then, save the final edited result as a 16-bit TIFF.

If you're shooting in RAW, you need to save the original RAW and all the edit actions, whether in a database like Lightroom or a format that retains those edit actions, such as PSD or DNG or even TIFF where the editor appends the edit actions into the TIFF file. Now you'll have TIFF files that greatly exceed the original size of the large to begin with RAW files.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

If your planning on doing graphics or retouching work there is some advantage, to saving it in TIFF, not the least of which is it preserves the original. But the source is still the source. JPEG is 8 bits (x 3 channels sometimes called 24 bit) and JPEG is lossy-compressed. So some data has been lost. It can be minor or not depending on the subject. Re-touching a jpeg causes a loss 3db S/N ratio every time you save it. After saving it as a TIFF you can open and re-touch it without additional losses.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

One reason is if you are going to post process it, and you want to use layers, which are not supported in JPEG.

Joe Blow

It would be better if you saved your source JPGs as JPGs and did not touch them. That way they don't loose their quality.

What I did before turning to RAW full time (which I recommend) is to leave my original, unprocessed JPGs in one event folder. I would create a subfolder in that folder to hold my processed photos. If I wanted to process a shot I would just copy the original JPG to my editor. If later I wanted to do another edit, I would just copy the original again and when finished, save it in the subfolder with an appended file name. Because I did not save the edited as the original I was never degrading the original.

But seriously, editing a RAW photo gives so much more room for adjusting.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If you do any post processing that involves layers, the application will save the image as a tiff or psd. But in saving jpeg->tiff in your workflow there is no inherent benefit to you.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I’ve been enlightened since I added Lightroom to my arsenal. Shoot in RAW, edit in Adobe (or whatever you use), save as JPEG, PSD, or TIFF, depending on the output and use intended. Cardinal rule: Never open and resave a JPEG. Open as RAW or TIFF, and save the (sometimes multiple) versions as new TIFFs, PSDs, or JPEGs. Only edit from lossless images and, if necessary, save each separate version in lossy format under a new name.

Andy

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

When you convert a JPEG file to TIFF you make it looseless. If you keep on working with the same JPEG file you are going to loose data.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I'd say there's no real advantage to saving something as tif.

I believe your best bet is to shoot raw and do any postprocessing with an editor that does not change the original, such as Lightroom/Photoshop (for those who don't like Adobe for some reason there are other editors that do not change the original). If you shoot jpg, the same comment applies, but shooting raw gives you the highest quality data for your editing.

While re-writing a jpg does increase artifacts, you have the choice to minimize compression and make the artifacts smaller. A low compression jpg will take many rewrites before you will see any effect without serious pixel peeping, and if you use an editor that always starts with the original file, you are only effectively doing one rewrite.

Saving as tif is basically the same as saving as jpg with no compression: i.e. you have essentially a bitmap. The edit parameters are determined by the editing program so your tif has those parameters "baked in", just like the jpg you would get from the same program. If you ever want to re-edit the image (and most of us improve our editing skills with practice) the best thing is to save the raw file, or at least the original file.

I save the original (raw) and also create a jpg which I can use for distribution. If I need to re-edit, Lightroom saves my original edits so I can either start from that point or since Lightroom saves the history, I can go back to any point in the editing history and start there. Even back to no edits.

If your client wants, tif, then save that way. Otherwise, jpg is fine.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. I use PhotoPlus (Serif product before Affinity) which is superb, and layers, filters etc are all totally accessible when editing JPGs. In fact I always sharpen using layers and a high pass filter.
My modus operandi is, if starting with a RAW, to develop the raw (adjust WB, Tone), then save as a JPG and complete with adjustments and finish with sharpening if I wish to.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't know PhotoPlus, I use Photoshop, and whenever you add layers to a JPEG, it automatically saves it as a PSD file.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

You are right that jpg does not support layers. If you add layers in Photoshop it will try to preserve the layers so it saves the edited image as a psd file.

However, it is possible to save the resulting image as a jpg from Photoshop. To do that, Photoshop will automatically flatten the layers to produce a jpg. File > save as > jpg

gerdog

People sometimes forget that a photo taken by your camera has an awful lot of detail even if the camera saves it as a jpg. The camera saves it as a BIG jpg. It is during the processing and saving with your computer software where you risk losing detail by saving it as a further compressed jpg. Saving as tif after processing will ensure that the detail your camera included will be preserved. Realistically, JPEG's saved by your processing apps are a lot more detailed than than ones optimized by shrinking for use on the web.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I shoot EVERYTHING in Raw then I can edit, develop, modify and everything without loss of the original.. Then I can export the "finished" product to jpg, tiff or what ever I want without the damage or loss to my original. The only time my camera goes to jpg is if I messed up and it got set there accidently. (yes I did that twice).