Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
JPEG vs. TIFF
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jan 30, 2013 02:11:56   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
I've been wondering about any possible appearance differences between JPEG and TIFF so I devised a little test. I shot a squirrel in RAW, processed that in Canon's Digital Photo Professional, simultaneously converted it to JPEG and TIFF, cropped both the same, re-sized them upwards some, rotated the TIFF around and put them in the same image, saving and uploading that as a PNG format for uploading to uhh since TIFF isn't an allowable format. I had been wondering how, and if, a JPEG might change the appearance, if any, and how the compression algorithm might affect the image immediately, and if it would be noticeable. I think I'm seeing in these images, both 8 bit, and it's very subtle on my monitor, but the JPEG seems to vary more in vibrancy, more saturated light colors and blacker blacks, and seems to be missing what appears to be more mid-tones in the TIFF. The JPEG also seems to be bit sharper at first glance. Of course, everyone's monitor is subject to vary but I'd like some feedback on what others see and if I'm dreaming, or what. Results might differ with a 16 bit TIFF but I tried to keep everything the same for a fair comparison with no further processing in either the JPEG or the TIFF. Tell me what you think, please. Thanks.

Shot with a 5D2 and 400 f/5.6 non-IS handheld at f/5.6, 1/400th, iso 250
Shot with a 5D2 and 400 f/5.6 non-IS handheld at f...

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 02:49:40   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA
 
Interesting comparison. Side-by-side, I see a very subtle difference. Both are more than acceptable.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 03:10:37   #
john clayton
 
Try printing them out "A3" size then compare them

Reply
 
 
Jan 30, 2013 03:11:39   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
Great work! I really can't see any difference. Most people will be content with the JPEG. The major practical difference is that JPEG photographs are compressed when stored, thus creating the possibility of eventual loss of detail. TIFF files are uncompressed and are considered "non-lossy". It should be noted that, although still popular, TIFF has not been upgraded for more than twenty years and is often replaced by a RAW file from which JPEG files can be created in a single step and saved with minimal loss. The fact that some pp software programs can apply pre-stored processes to multiple files has merely served to increase the popularity of JPEG files.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 03:57:06   #
travlnman46 Loc: Yakima WA
 
gessman wrote:
I've been wondering about any possible appearance differences between JPEG and TIFF so I devised a little test. I shot a squirrel in RAW, processed that in Canon's Digital Photo Professional, simultaneously converted it to JPEG and TIFF, cropped both the same, re-sized them upwards some, rotated the TIFF around and put them in the same image, saving and uploading that as a PNG format for uploading to uhh since TIFF isn't an allowable format. I had been wondering how, and if, a JPEG might change the appearance, if any, and how the compression algorithm might affect the image immediately, and if it would be noticeable. I think I'm seeing in these images, both 8 bit, and it's very subtle on my monitor, but the JPEG seems to vary more in vibrancy, more saturated light colors and blacker blacks, and seems to be missing what appears to be more mid-tones in the TIFF. The JPEG also seems to be bit sharper at first glance. Of course, everyone's monitor is subject to vary but I'd like some feedback on what others see and if I'm dreaming, or what. Results might differ with a 16 bit TIFF but I tried to keep everything the same for a fair comparison with no further processing in either the JPEG or the TIFF. Tell me what you think, please. Thanks.
I've been wondering about any possible appearance ... (show quote)


Hi gessman: I actually took these up to 400 magnification to really look closely at them. I do believe the color in the JPEG is slightly brighter especially around its paw and ear.... However the TIFF photo more clearly showed the eye pupil, because of the lighter brown shade. Both Pictures are quite good.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 08:27:31   #
ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA
 
I just watched a video (on B&H website) on a photographer's post-processing stream using Lightroom and Photoshop. He shoots in raw + jpeg and uses the jpeg image to help him remember the colors and exposure when doing the pp on the raw image. He was using a Canon 60D and showed the original raw (converted to tiff) and jpeg side by side. The raw was really flat while the jpeg colors were vivid. So I'm surprised that yours are so close.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 23:12:47   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
Interesting comparison. Side-by-side, I see a very subtle difference. Both are more than acceptable.


Thanks for the look and comments. I appreciate it.

Reply
 
 
Jan 30, 2013 23:14:12   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
john clayton wrote:
Try printing them out "A3" size then compare them


Thanks for the suggestion. I rarely print anything but you're right - that would be the best approach in determining real difference in the end.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 23:15:07   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
Mogul wrote:
Great work! I really can't see any difference. Most people will be content with the JPEG. The major practical difference is that JPEG photographs are compressed when stored, thus creating the possibility of eventual loss of detail. TIFF files are uncompressed and are considered "non-lossy". It should be noted that, although still popular, TIFF has not been upgraded for more than twenty years and is often replaced by a RAW file from which JPEG files can be created in a single step and saved with minimal loss. The fact that some pp software programs can apply pre-stored processes to multiple files has merely served to increase the popularity of JPEG files.
Great work! I really can't see any difference. M... (show quote)


Thanks mogul. I appreciate your comments.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 23:18:35   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
travlnman46 wrote:
gessman wrote:
I've been wondering about any possible appearance differences between JPEG and TIFF so I devised a little test. I shot a squirrel in RAW, processed that in Canon's Digital Photo Professional, simultaneously converted it to JPEG and TIFF, cropped both the same, re-sized them upwards some, rotated the TIFF around and put them in the same image, saving and uploading that as a PNG format for uploading to uhh since TIFF isn't an allowable format. I had been wondering how, and if, a JPEG might change the appearance, if any, and how the compression algorithm might affect the image immediately, and if it would be noticeable. I think I'm seeing in these images, both 8 bit, and it's very subtle on my monitor, but the JPEG seems to vary more in vibrancy, more saturated light colors and blacker blacks, and seems to be missing what appears to be more mid-tones in the TIFF. The JPEG also seems to be bit sharper at first glance. Of course, everyone's monitor is subject to vary but I'd like some feedback on what others see and if I'm dreaming, or what. Results might differ with a 16 bit TIFF but I tried to keep everything the same for a fair comparison with no further processing in either the JPEG or the TIFF. Tell me what you think, please. Thanks.
I've been wondering about any possible appearance ... (show quote)


Hi gessman: I actually took these up to 400 magnification to really look closely at them. I do believe the color in the JPEG is slightly brighter especially around its paw and ear.... However the TIFF photo more clearly showed the eye pupil, because of the lighter brown shade. Both Pictures are quite good.
quote=gessman I've been wondering about any possi... (show quote)


Thanks for having a look and helping me analyze the image. I thought the most pronounced difference in the color was in the light area around the upper part of the eye, but either way, it's not that much. I was anticipating that the TIFF would have more punch.

Reply
Jan 30, 2013 23:22:13   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
ecobin wrote:
I just watched a video (on B&H website) on a photographer's post-processing stream using Lightroom and Photoshop. He shoots in raw + jpeg and uses the jpeg image to help him remember the colors and exposure when doing the pp on the raw image. He was using a Canon 60D and showed the original raw (converted to tiff) and jpeg side by side. The raw was really flat while the jpeg colors were vivid. So I'm surprised that yours are so close.


Do you suppose it could be that he has his camera set flat for RAW, as do I, and that he converted straight to TIFF without any post processing while he had his camera set to post process the JPEG with some sparkle to it? I post processed the RAW and then converted to both TIFF and JPEG simultaneously so I sent the same image out of the processing to conversion. That would be the only difference I can think of.

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2013 07:31:11   #
BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
 
For whatever its worth - at aboyt 10 inches from my screen it appears to me that the JPEG has a tab bit more of something, but I cannot describe what???
I sat back about 3 feet and placed my eyes in the center between the imagea and relaxed. My eye drew to the JPEG.

Reply
Jan 31, 2013 08:41:12   #
ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA
 
gessman wrote:
ecobin wrote:
I just watched a video (on B&H website) on a photographer's post-processing stream using Lightroom and Photoshop. He shoots in raw + jpeg and uses the jpeg image to help him remember the colors and exposure when doing the pp on the raw image. He was using a Canon 60D and showed the original raw (converted to tiff) and jpeg side by side. The raw was really flat while the jpeg colors were vivid. So I'm surprised that yours are so close.


Do you suppose it could be that he has his camera set flat for RAW, as do I, and that he converted straight to TIFF without any post processing while he had his camera set to post process the JPEG with some sparkle to it? I post processed the RAW and then converted to both TIFF and JPEG simultaneously so I sent the same image out of the processing to conversion. That would be the only difference I can think of.
quote=ecobin I just watched a video (on B&H w... (show quote)


Oh, that explains it. I thought you were comparing jpeg from the camera to raw/tiff from camera. PP raw & converting to both tiff and jpeg simultaneously should not show any difference as the you would need to zoom closely in on the jpeg version to see the loss compared to the tiff. Also, in posting here the tiff becomes jpeg so even less difference.

Reply
Jan 31, 2013 08:59:26   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
BboH wrote:
For whatever its worth - at aboyt 10 inches from my screen it appears to me that the JPEG has a tab bit more of something, but I cannot describe what???
I sat back about 3 feet and placed my eyes in the center between the imagea and relaxed. My eye drew to the JPEG.


Thank you. That was pretty much my reaction. There's something but it's hard to 'put your finger on it.'

Reply
Jan 31, 2013 09:06:17   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
ecobin wrote:
gessman wrote:
ecobin wrote:
I just watched a video (on B&H website) on a photographer's post-processing stream using Lightroom and Photoshop. He shoots in raw + jpeg and uses the jpeg image to help him remember the colors and exposure when doing the pp on the raw image. He was using a Canon 60D and showed the original raw (converted to tiff) and jpeg side by side. The raw was really flat while the jpeg colors were vivid. So I'm surprised that yours are so close.


Do you suppose it could be that he has his camera set flat for RAW, as do I, and that he converted straight to TIFF without any post processing while he had his camera set to post process the JPEG with some sparkle to it? I post processed the RAW and then converted to both TIFF and JPEG simultaneously so I sent the same image out of the processing to conversion. That would be the only difference I can think of.
quote=ecobin I just watched a video (on B&H w... (show quote)


Oh, that explains it. I thought you were comparing jpeg from the camera to raw/tiff from camera. PP raw & converting to both tiff and jpeg simultaneously should not show any difference as the you would need to zoom closely in on the jpeg version to see the loss compared to the tiff. Also, in posting here the tiff becomes jpeg so even less difference.
quote=gessman quote=ecobin I just watched a vide... (show quote)


Thanks but actually, that's not what has occurred. I converted simultaneously then cropped both jpeg and tiff and save that image as a png which is a non-loss format retaining more of the quality of the tiff so the tiff has never been a jpg in the non-downsized version that you're seeing once you opt to 'download' the image. The original you're seeing at that point is the png unless all images are converted by uhh and that's not supposed to be how it works as I understand it when you select "store original." I do reserve the right to be wrong, however. Regardless of what form the final image is in, there seemed to me to be an immediate difference as soon as the two files were converted from RAW and that difference has remained right up through all the handling that's been done as best I can tell.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.