TIFF vs JPEG

[Teo]

Hi guys,

Need advise whether is there much diff in terms of picture quality taken between TIFF and JPEG?


TIA
cheers

 

[erizai]

Generally..

Tiff:-

Pro:loss-less format, better quality
Con:Bigger file size

Jpg:-

Pro: Smaller file size
Con: Overcompressed will spoilt your Pic

Nowaday it is very common that the people use jpg fine.. just stick with it..:thumbsup:

 

[LittleWolf]

Need advise whether is there much diff in terms of picture quality taken between TIFF and JPEG?

JPEG refers to a family of image data compression methods, TIFF is a file format that allows to store images in a variety of ways. In particular, TIFF files can use JPEG compression to store images. There is therefore no meaningful answer to your question.

 

[yyD70S]

References:

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


http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/jpeg-tiff-raw-file-formats.html


Regards

 

[theRBK]

basically:

Jpg=small files;
more compressed Jpg=worse quality image.

Tif=larger files;
quality of image is maintained no matter how many times you save if uncompressed or losslessly compressed;
when compressed using jpg compression, quality deteriorates...

Although I must add that there is probably no camera that uses compressed TIF...with the possible exception of Phase One digital backs, if you consider their files TIF...but that is a different story...

 

[hazmee]

Application wise: JPEG would be faster to process, store and emailed over mainly because of their compressed state. Please note that the JPEG file will loose its quality every time its opened and saved. I used lots of JPEGs for the magazine I am doing and its fine. Nowadays, photo-editing softwares are good at handling JPEGs. I would prefer processing JPEG than TIFF if I there's time constraint.

A TIFF file is generally good for archiving if you want to preserve the highest quality. Normally stock photo agency will store them in TIFF format.

For everyday work or play, unless you're doing large prints most of time, JPEGs are fine. Hope that helps. Cheers!

Hazmee

 

[lwt11137]

Application wise: JPEG would be faster to process, store and emailed over mainly because of their compressed state. Please note that the JPEG file will loose its quality every time its opened and saved. I used lots of JPEGs for the magazine I am doing and its fine. Nowadays, photo-editing softwares are good at handling JPEGs. I would prefer processing JPEG than TIFF if I there's time constraint.

A TIFF file is generally good for archiving if you want to preserve the highest quality. Normally stock photo agency will store them in TIFF format.

For everyday work or play, unless you're doing large prints most of time, JPEGs are fine. Hope that helps. Cheers!

Hazmee

sorry to interupt as i had ask an question regarding transfer picture to cdrw and send to photo lab for printing will it affect the quality but from most of the answer i got from here were it will not. But from what you had written it will affect the quality once you open and save so which is which a bit confuse lah. Still very new in digital photography please enlighten me, thank you.

 

[judeseah]

sorry to interupt as i had ask an question regarding transfer picture to cdrw and send to photo lab for printing will it affect the quality but from most of the answer i got from here were it will not. But from what you had written it will affect the quality once you open and save so which is which a bit confuse lah. Still very new in digital photography please enlighten me, thank you.

u only make it worse if u open,
and save over itself under jpeg again.
if just open without saving,
or cut and paste to cd,
no loss.

try this,
open a pic while noting its file size.
use 'save as' and over itself.
repeat, say 10 times.
even if u had used the best quality of compression,
u will still find that the file size grew.
but honestly,
so what?
those artifacts introduced might only be seen at 100%,
n most probably not shows up under 4R prints.

go take photos n enjoy,
don't be bother by all this.
u will learn more as u shoot.

jude

 

[lwt11137]

u only make it worse if u open,
and save over itself under jpeg again.
if just open without saving,
or cut and paste to cd,
no loss.

try this,
open a pic while noting its file size.
use 'save as' and over itself.
repeat, say 10 times.
even if u had used the best quality of compression,
u will still find that the file size grew.
but honestly,
so what?
those artifacts introduced might only be seen at 100%,
n most probably not shows up under 4R prints.

go take photos n enjoy,
don't be bother by all this.
u will learn more as u shoot.

jude

thank for your advice.

 

[erizai]

JPEG refers to a family of image data compression methods, TIFF is a file format that allows to store images in a variety of ways. In particular, TIFF files can use JPEG compression to store images. There is therefore no meaningful answer to your question.

IIRC, Tiff can only have LZW compression but not jpg. correct me if I were wrong.

In fact Tiff format is really different from jpg.

 

[LittleWolf]

IIRC, Tiff can only have LZW compression but not jpg. correct me if I were wrong.

In fact Tiff format is really different from jpg.

I hereby correct you . This info is taken from an old (1997) FAQ:

Compression types include

* raw uncompressed,
* PackBits
* Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW)
* CCITT Fax 3 & 4
* JPEG (see below)

 

[erizai]

Thx for the correction.

But I couldn't find any jpg compression at tiff format saving in Photoshop, what about?:what:

 

[LittleWolf]

Thx for the correction.

But I couldn't find any jpg compression at tiff format saving in Photoshop, what about?:what:

Most software doesn't support each and every feature that is possible, but only a subset. Btw, Photoshop is hardly a good reference for image file formats. A lot of images processed with photoshop and posted here violate both JFIF and Exif specifications.

 

[theRBK]

Er... there should be the option to do that in PS...what version are you using?...
would show you a screen capture of it but my file server down :angry:

 

[EiRiK]

a print lab i went to said they prefer tiff for large prints coz i am printing a few pix thats quite large, abt poster size.
but i have done all the PS work and saved in jpg. even the original pix were taken in jpg.

quality wise, is there a point to convert my jgp images to tiff?

i should have shot in raw in the first place right?

 

[G-man]

Yes the print shop is right.

1. JPG delays the time taken to digitally output something.
2. JPG's quality is degraded each time you open and save it, that's how it maintains it's small size.
3. TIFF is always a better image format for reproduction

You should always save a copy of your image as a TIFF file and work on it the moment you open your JPG image for the first time. TIFF is a lossless format.

 

[EiRiK]

You should always save a copy of your image as a TIFF file and work on it the moment you open your JPG image for the first time. TIFF is a lossless format.

hhmm... that means 1st i "save as" my jpg to tiff. then continue to do PS work on the tiff image from then on?

 

[EiRiK]

what do i need to look out for when working a tiff image?

srgb or argb better?

thank u

 

[G-man]

hhmm... that means 1st i "save as" my jpg to tiff. then continue to do PS work on the tiff image from then on?

Yep, that's the only option.

I work in CMYK, don't ask me why. Hahahaha. I prefer RGB colours though but have little experience with them. I've got great printers who clear up my mistakes for me without yelling at me. I think I ought to make life easier for them from now on. Gotta start learning the itsy bitsy details.

 

[+evenstar]

aRGB gives more accurate colours with a bigger DR, though not many printers can print aRGB.