Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelby has released an article on Tiff files, link below:
https://lightroomkillertips.com/dont-use-tiff-for-anything-ever/I do most of my processing in Affinity Photo which allows exporting processed files in about 12 formats and I usually export in tiff and jpg, the latter for smaller files I might want to email. My impression has been that tiff files are excellent for files to be further processed, printed, etc. What's the opinion on Kelby's argument by fellow Hoggers?? Is it foolish to save processed files as tiffs?
Wanderer2 wrote:
Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelby has released an article on Tiff files, link below:
https://lightroomkillertips.com/dont-use-tiff-for-anything-ever/I do most of my processing in Affinity Photo which allows exporting processed files in about 12 formats and I usually export in tiff and jpg, the latter for smaller files I might want to email. My impression has been that tiff files are excellent for files to be further processed, printed, etc. What's the opinion on Kelby's argument by fellow Hoggers?? Is it foolish to save processed files as tiffs?
Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelb... (
show quote)
Well you see his argument is the size of TIFF files, and they are huge. Large files take more time to process etc. in addition to the size on your hard drive.
Wanderer2 wrote:
Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelby has released an article on Tiff files, link below:
https://lightroomkillertips.com/dont-use-tiff-for-anything-ever/I do most of my processing in Affinity Photo which allows exporting processed files in about 12 formats and I usually export in tiff and jpg, the latter for smaller files I might want to email. My impression has been that tiff files are excellent for files to be further processed, printed, etc. What's the opinion on Kelby's argument by fellow Hoggers?? Is it foolish to save processed files as tiffs?
Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelb... (
show quote)
Didn't see his video but he is a photoshop guy so if he save his images as *.psd then there is no reason for TIFF. For distribution JPEG is sufficient.
Scott says "Jump in a lake!"
Will you?
TIFF is one of the best format around, period. Size? Really? Is that all he has to say?
As I was counseling a kid (17) two days ago.
Folks will all come with advice, including me. What you need to do is pick and select what applies to you, nothing else. The choice will always be yours and you always will bear the consequences of your choices, not the advice 'giver'.
Same goes with everything, including photography.
If we tried to copy what every self-styled expert says, we’d be doing something different every day.
MrBob
Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama
I am always going back in and redoing the same file in PS. TIFF works great !
Everyone has an opinion. He's never been someone I've followed, even though he has been very successful.
Wanderer2 wrote:
Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelby has released an article on Tiff files, link below:
https://lightroomkillertips.com/dont-use-tiff-for-anything-ever/I do most of my processing in Affinity Photo which allows exporting processed files in about 12 formats and I usually export in tiff and jpg, the latter for smaller files I might want to email. My impression has been that tiff files are excellent for files to be further processed, printed, etc. What's the opinion on Kelby's argument by fellow Hoggers?? Is it foolish to save processed files as tiffs?
Well known author of photoediting books Scott Kelb... (
show quote)
I'm not familiar with Scott Kelby's work. It took me a while to realize he's talking about saving files out of Lightroom. He should have made that clearer. The title of his article, taken by itself is nonsense, as are some of the statements he makes ("…. don’t use TIFF for anything ever…." / "Don’t save files in TIFF. You can pretty much pretend TIFF doesn’t exist.")
When I scan photos or negatives for subsequent photo editing, I shouldn't save them in TIFF?
srt101fan wrote:
I'm not familiar with Scott Kelby's work. It took me a while to realize he's talking about saving files out of Lightroom. He should have made that clearer. The title of his article, taken by itself is nonsense, as are some of the statements he makes ("…. don’t use TIFF for anything ever…." / "Don’t save files in TIFF. You can pretty much pretend TIFF doesn’t exist.")
When I scan photos or negatives for subsequent photo editing, I shouldn't save them in TIFF?
I'm not familiar with Scott Kelby's work. It took... (
show quote)
When I can scan directly to Photoshop I would save the files as *.psd but now I can't do that due to my scanner driver isn't support under windows 10. So I would use scanner software and scan as TIFF then edit them in Photoshop.
my impression was that tiff's were better for large prints.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
bull drink water wrote:
my impression was that tiff's were better for large prints.
There is a place for tif and a place for jpg. Large prints are irrelevant to the decision.
For large prints you need resolution. That can be provided in any format.
A jpg is good for distribution on a limited basis. The file size is reasonable and if it is a low compression jpg you are not likely to see the compression artifacts. Small files are easily transmissable by email. If jpgs are used in web pages, the page will load faster.
The strongest argument for tif is that it is not compressed by a lossy algorithm so (1) the image can be pixel peeped and (2) re-writes of the tif will not degrade the image. To many people that means that if you send someone a tif the image will last longer. However, there is nothing to prevent someone from looking at the size of the file and converting the image to jpg (at whatever compression they usually use).
As far as saving edited files is concerned, the best thing is to start with a parametric editor. Edits are stored as a series of commands to use on the original file. Any re-edits just change that series of commands and the original file is a constant. I see no reason to store intermediate tif files. Always start with the original. If you save a file as a tif and later want to re-edit it from the tif, it's like editing a jpg. Much of the editing has been done and baked into the image. Better to start again with the original.
Yes, a tif file can save layers. That would help, but you are ballooning the file significantly. Why not save in the native format of the software that generated the layers?
If you use Photoshop, save in the native PS format, the PSD.
Rongnongno wrote:
Scott says "Jump in a lake!"
Will you?
TIFF is one of the best format around, period. Size? Really? Is that all he has to say?
As I was counseling a kid (17) two days ago.
Folks will all come with advice, including me. What you need to do is pick and select what applies to you, nothing else. The choice will always be yours and you always will bear the consequences of your choices, not the advice 'giver'.
Same goes with everything, including photography.
Scott says "Jump in a lake!" br br Will... (
show quote)
I'm my own person.
I don't follow the "experts" because they are or purported to be so.
I will analyze what someone says, but I'll make my own decision on the "best process".
Mostly, statements they make are really their opinions, but people take them as gospel because of their
expert status.
(SO many experts out there.)
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
Longshadow wrote:
I'm my own person.
I don't follow the "experts" because they are or purported to be so.
I will analyze what someone says, but I'll make my own decision on the "best process".
Mostly, statements they make are really their opinions, but people take them as gospel because of their
expert status.
(SO many experts out there.)
"Ever" - really???
This title is the kind of typical nonsense that confuses people.
I have a scanner which produces JPEG files and it produces TIFF files.
Somebody would read this title and then create JPEG files only ..... really???
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
robertjerl wrote:
Well you see his argument is the size of TIFF files, and they are huge. Large files take more time to process etc. in addition to the size on your hard drive.
Size of
file should not affect processing time.
Processing time is affected by
image size.
Only I/O is affected by
file size.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.