Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Tiff vs jpeg
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
Apr 16, 2013 15:43:53   #
PhotoGator Loc: Florida
 
GHK wrote:
You don't edit photos in TIFF or JPEG, or PSD for that matter; they are file storage formats and have nothing to do with editing.
You edit in an editing program such as Photshop.
GHK


We edit the image files according to our preferred shooting format and convert or export them to a given file format dictated by our needs or requirements.
We edit the TIFF, JPEG, DNG, RAW or whatever file format the image original format happens to be, of course using an image editor that will support such format.
GHK, your comment was unnecessary and over the top.
Next time save it, you did not provide or contributed to the OP learning experience nor mine.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 15:57:09   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
GHK wrote:
When you open, let's say a JPEG, you bring it into the chosen program, at which point it ceases to be a JPEG. After editing you can resave it as a JPEG if you wish, but tou can also save as PSD, TIFF, or any other appropriate storage format.
GHK


We have no need to know that it is no longer a jpg once inside a program. That's useless information even though it may be correct, nor do we have any control over that. Otherwise, the fact is that if a file has undergone the compression inherent in a jpg, you can save it as a tiff but it will never have more information in it than it had as a jpg so it is irrelevant whether you save it as another format beyond moving it from a lossy to a lossless format. It becomes a jpg in a tiff's clothing.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 16:08:35   #
PhotoGator Loc: Florida
 
gessman wrote:
We have no need to know that it is no longer a jpg once inside a program. That's useless information even though it may be correct, nor do we have any control over that. Otherwise, the fact is that if a file has undergone the compression inherent in a jpg, you can save it as a tiff but it will never have more information in it than it had as a jpg so it is irrelevant whether you save it as another format beyond moving it from a lossy to a lossless format. It becomes a jpg in a tiff's clothing.
We have no need to know that it is no longer a jpg... (show quote)


Well said!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Apr 16, 2013 16:22:24   #
nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA
 
gessman wrote:
We have no need to know that it is no longer a jpg once inside a program. That's useless information even though it may be correct, nor do we have any control over that. Otherwise, the fact is that if a file has undergone the compression inherent in a jpg, you can save it as a tiff but it will never have more information in it than it had as a jpg so it is irrelevant whether you save it as another format beyond moving it from a lossy to a lossless format. It becomes a jpg in a tiff's clothing.
We have no need to know that it is no longer a jpg... (show quote)


LOVE IT!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!! "Jpg in Tiff's Clothing." Anyone out there writing a book on photography? Perfect Title.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 18:26:07   #
picpiper Loc: California
 
Picdude wrote:
... When you "take a picture" and save it in both RAW and jpeg, it's not that you are capturing more information in RAW (you're not).


Actually the RAW file DOES have more information. Not only is the state of each pixel stored, but in some RAW files it is stored at a higher bit depth (10, 12, or 14) instead of 8. If you really want to dive into the deep technical end of this pool see this: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth (then click on the "home" link there to see the other 3 chapters of this treatise.)

Picdude wrote:
RAW gives you more information to work with because it has been processed less coming out of the camera. You will not have as much detail in a jpeg image that has been converted from RAW because the jpeg process compresses the image...


I thought you just said RAW files don't contain more information? :shock:

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 18:41:08   #
gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona
 
What about PSD format vs. TIFF? I save my edited RAW images to PSD and JPG. I use the PSD for future re sizing, or editing. PSD has all the layers and detail.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 18:54:57   #
mdorn Loc: Portland, OR
 
rpavich wrote:
It doesn't "lose quality in editing" but instead "loses quality every time it's resaved"

If you are only editing it once...then don't worry about it.


Yes! The voice of reason and logic. :-)

Reply
 
 
Apr 16, 2013 21:44:23   #
Picdude Loc: Ohio
 
picpiper wrote:
I thought you just said RAW files don't contain more information? :shock:


I stand by my entire statement and actually I don't see where your reference to a paper comparing noise to 12 and 14 bit data files has any relevance to the question the OP asked.
Once the sensor in the camera captures the image it has the option of saving the image in a RAW format, jpeg format or both. The sensor does not change the amount data it captures based on whether it saves in RAW or jpeg. However, the amount of processing and compression of the captured data file IS different between RAW and jpeg. The OP asked if all of the data saved in RAW format be transferred if the image is converted to jpeg. No it will not.
Your feigned shock is misplaced, irrelevant and frankly uncalled for.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 21:50:00   #
Picdude Loc: Ohio
 
gemlenz wrote:
What about PSD format vs. TIFF? I save my edited RAW images to PSD and JPG. I use the PSD for future re sizing, or editing. PSD has all the layers and detail.


PSD works great as long as you are editing with Adobe software. But PSD format may not be recognized in non-Adobe products.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 21:55:42   #
Picdude Loc: Ohio
 
gemlenz wrote:
What about PSD format vs. TIFF? I save my edited RAW images to PSD and JPG. I use the PSD for future re sizing, or editing. PSD has all the layers and detail.


PSD works great as long as you are editing with Adobe software. It is also recognized in Apple, ACD, Corel and GIMP products. But PSD format may not be recognized all non-Adobe products. Other than that, it will work just as well as TIFF.

Reply
Apr 16, 2013 23:27:28   #
stan0301 Loc: Colorado
 
Maybe somebody said this, but I didn't see it--shoot in raw--do your fix up in Photoshop format (it is lossless) and then flatten and convert to JPEG when you print
Stan

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2013 00:52:45   #
gemac Loc: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
 
Just a quick shot back to the past. A negative has a longer tonal scale than a paper print. Given that the brightest white is just a piece of paper a print does not try to convey all the negative data, only give a pleasing rendition of part of it. Taking a picture of a print is a lot like copying a jpeg. You dont "prefer" unedited raw files nor do you prefer to look at negatives. The world looks at jpegs and prints. PNGs allow you to have a bitmap with irregular boundaries and shapes on the web, all jpegs are rectangles. vector formats are a whole nother world.

Reply
Apr 17, 2013 05:40:13   #
GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden
 
gessman wrote:
I understand your point quite well but your comment may be going a little too far toward absolute and abject perfectionism for our needs here. The fact is that without a jpg, tiff, psd, et. al., there is no reason for an editing program to exist and the expression of "editing in tiff" is simply a shortcut method of saying "using an editing program to edit a tiff file." Shortcuts are not only acceptable but can be quite functional at times in cutting down on unnecessary verbiage. Rather than make sure that we wipe out all ignorance in one fell swoop, maybe we should leave it up to each person to solve their own ignorance issues at their own pace by maybe asking a question the answers to which will then be open to everyone. You're approach to this is likely to only generate conflict even if you're dead right and have good intentions which I respectfully submit that are and do. And to the OP, please excuse me for interrupting the flow of the thread.
I understand your point quite well but your commen... (show quote)


Thanks; I do accept what you say, and it is well expressed. However, I still believe that I have a point; perhaps because absolute precision in terminology was essential for me professionally, and lack of it could be disastrous.
GHK

Reply
Apr 17, 2013 07:32:18   #
nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA
 
stan0301 wrote:
Maybe somebody said this, but I didn't see it--shoot in raw--do your fix up in Photoshop format (it is lossless) and then flatten and convert to JPEG when you print
Stan


Stan - I asked about these other formats because I don't yet know Photoshop. I certainly know a lot more than I did 36 hrs ago. This forum beats all of the manuals I have tried to read, even if opinions differ sometimes.

Reply
Apr 17, 2013 08:17:31   #
PhotoGator Loc: Florida
 
Are TIFFs and RAWs Really the Same Thing?
by CHRIS GAMPAT on 09/26/2011

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/

Raw vs. JPEG: Which should you shoot and when?

http://www.techhive.com/article/1168046/raw-vs-jpeg-which-should-you-shoot-and-when.html

JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time by Ken Rockwell

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

RAW, JPEG and TIFF
by Bob Atkins, 2004 (updated June 2008

http://photo.net/learn/raw/

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.