Forums > Photography Talk > JPG to TIF...but which one?

Photographer

Michael Gundelach

Posts: 763

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

I bought recently the Canon 350D an I'm pretty satisfied with it. My RAW pics got converted inot TIF with RAW Shooter...
But when it comes to JPG it's a different story. I convert the JPG pics into TIF with Thumbs 7.0 since I always had the best results with this program converting TIF into jpg for web publishing.
But what kind of TIF should I use? When I convert a 5 MB JPG-File into TIF "uncompressed" I'll get a 45 MB File (!!!). Using "smart compression" I get an 8-10 MB File which is what I usually had by scanning pics in...

Is there any experience around how to use TIF compression?

Aug 17 05 07:12 am Link

Photographer

Michael Tappan

Posts: 122

Scottsbluff, Nebraska, US

Hello Michael,
I have any old Olympus E20 (5Mpix) and shoot in hi-res JPG mode.  The files are about 3.4MB coming out of the camera.  I import the images as files rather than using any import programs to avoid the original images being re-compressed.  I will open the file for editing and save the working copy as an uncompressed TIFF file. The final version of the edit also gets saved as a TIFF file.  I only convert the files to JPG when I resize them for web posting. JPG is a good compression scheme, but as you know, each time you save a JPF file, it gets compressed and you lose a bit of data each time depending on how much compression you specify.

I may be wrong, but shooting in RAW mode then converting your images to another format sort of defeats the purpose I would think, but my camera is too slow to be practical in RAW mode so I've never used it.

Aug 17 05 07:29 am Link

Photographer

Michael Gundelach

Posts: 763

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Thanks Michael,
So far I handle the files the same. I was only confused having a 45 MB TIF-File when converting from the original JPG-File. I thought that's kind of big. Even my RAW-Files aresomething around 13 MB - so not as big as the TIFs.

Thumb 7.0 gives you 5 methods to compress a tif file though. I have no clue what they meant concerning the quality. So to be sure I chose "uncompressed" butit gives me the largest TIF I ever had so far.

I like the RAW format though. The Canon is fast enough for even quick shots (3 pics per second).

Aug 17 05 07:41 am Link

Photographer

Fred Brown Photo

Posts: 1302

Chicago, Illinois, US

If you must compress your TIFF files, I would suggest using the LZW which is a common TIFF compression alothough in the press world although they prefer that you do not compress them at all. Also TIFFs have compression so it's lossless so no worries.

Aug 17 05 12:16 pm Link

Photographer

Columbus Photo

Posts: 2318

Columbus, Georgia, US

If you're using PS, why not just use PS's .psd format instead of tiff?

Paul

Aug 17 05 12:29 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Gundelach

Posts: 763

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Paul Ferrara wrote:
If you're using PS, why not just use PS's .psd format instead of tiff?

Paul

I agree. I use PSP and can use the PSP format - but none of my friends would have the possibilities to see them. Furthermore the labs wouldn't be able to read them from digital media.

Fred: I have the LWZ compression shown in the programm. I will probably try that. It's just that I got confused by all these different formats. I know what a bad JPG compression can do with a pic and I'd rather be safe than sorry...

Thanks for all the insights!! It's really appreciated!

Aug 17 05 12:35 pm Link

Photographer

Marcus J. Ranum

Posts: 3247

MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US

Hartsoe wrote:
But what kind of TIF should I use? When I convert a 5 MB JPG-File into TIF "uncompressed" I'll get a 45 MB File (!!!). Using "smart compression" I get an 8-10 MB File which is what I usually had by scanning pics in...

Smart compressed TIF is lossless. So you're not losing anything by compressing it.

However, the odds are really good that your eye couldn't tell the difference anyhow. Many service bureaus demand TIF because it's an intellectual safety-net more than for any technical reason.

How well can you tell the difference? Take my test to see if you can tell lossy from non-lossy!  Most people score about 80% but that's only because they're trying hard, and the images are side-by-side for comparison. Give it a shot. smile

mjr.

Aug 17 05 06:41 pm Link