Tiff Tiff

Timothy C. Tyler · 09-02-2003, 10:40 AM

Is there any advantage to shooting tiffs (in the original?) and not converting later from Jpegs?

Cynthia Daniel · 09-02-2003, 06:24 PM

A tif (or tiff) file maintains all original pixels, but a jpg does not. A jpg file is a compressed version of a file and the level of compression determines the degree of quality. If you think you will ever do printing on a printing press, tif is definitely what you want.

However, tif files are very large and can eat up your hard drive. Normally, when an artist sends me a tif file, since I'm only doing images for the web, I'll resave it as a jpg with low compression (high quality) and still maintain the original size. Even at low compression, it makes a dramatic difference in the file size and because I've not changed the dimensions (if it came to me as 1870 pixels x 2570 pixels, it stays that way), I can later make whatever file I would would need for the web and there is not obvious loss of quality. But, again, for a printing press, keep a tif.

This site has great information: http://www.scantips.com/

I must admit that at certain points, I don't even quite understand everything there.

Karin Wells · 12-15-2003, 03:11 PM

If you shoot in a jpg format, be sure to download your pictures from the camera and immediately burn them onto a CD before you manipulate them in any way.

Every time you open a jpg image file you damage the quality. Imagine how much you'd lose if you repeatedly save and reopen the same image.

Burning a CD insures that you can always have a copy of the original high quality image undamaged.

I learned all this the hard way.

Carl Toboika · 12-15-2003, 04:13 PM

Alternatively, open your picture in Photoshop from the camera, and save it as a .tif to your hard drive. You will have the resolution and quality of the original in .tif format on your hard drive at that point and you can play with it and either save as .tif, or rename to keep the original file in the original state. Just don't save as a .jpg

Tim, there's so little difference in quality between the high res .jpg and the .tif INSIDE the camera that I have, (that likely varies between camera types though), that I take most of mine as hi res .jpg and turn them into .tif in Photoshop, adjust if I want, then burn to CD. It's just another way to do it.

Karin Wells · 12-15-2003, 04:30 PM

I agree with you Carl that converting from a .jpg to a .tif will "fix" the image. But I was under the impression that running a .jpg through Photoshop will damage the image a bit.

I am in the habit ot saving all image files to CDs so I don't overload my hard drive and slow my computer any more than necessary.

Timothy C. Tyler · 12-18-2003, 08:37 PM

Thanks Karin, Carl; I just talked with a couple of pro photographers and they don't worry about it much. The jpegs you can shoot much faster-5 frames per second or so and they load quickly.

Carl Toboika · 12-19-2003, 10:21 PM

Karin,

It's my understanding that the worst degrading happens when saving as a .jpg. That file format compresses the image in a lossy way (it throws out information and averages things). That's a problem to some certain degree, right in the camera, and likely varies a bit in how apparent a problem, from camera to camera. If you resave as a .jpg again you are throwing away information from an image that already threw away information. Ouch.

The problem in Photoshop can be it's 8 color bit limitation. The newest Photoshop bumped up to manipulation in 16 bits and is better that way. Photoshop will also throw away information as you manipulate the levels etc. of an image. PS can save in 16 bits, and I'm not sure if the new can save in 32 or not until I install it on my computer.

So, it will depend upon how many bits your camera saves in, as to whether simply opening and saving in Photoshop will lessen it's quality. If your camera saves in 32 bits, then by all means your method is best for maintaining that 32 bits.

However, since my references will either be printed from Photoshop, or adjusted in Photoshop, I just deal with the 16 and 8 bit limitation. I save as a .tif in Photoshop as that is the bit level the image will be printed and viewed at anyway, and am pleased with the new Photoshop

Karin Wells · 12-20-2003, 11:11 AM

Carl, I have Photoshop 7.0. Can you tell me what else the new Photoshop has - and what it is called? Photoshop 8.0 or CS?

Jeanine Jackson · 12-23-2003, 08:47 PM

Very informative thread.

Thank you all!

Carl Toboika · 01-02-2004, 06:56 PM

Karin,
It's Photoshop CS, they did away with the numbers this time out. I have it sitting on the Studio Floor and will be installing it sometime after the weekend.

It now does layers and paint in 16 bit instead of 8 bit.

It has a shadow/high light correction tool that supposedly will bring out detail in over-dark shadow areas, or overexposed light areas. There's a complex way to do that in shadows, in the old Photoshop, using multiple layers and the gaussian blur filter (I'll get that to you soon Marvin, holidays have been murder on time). I have high hopes this version offers an easy tool that does it as well as the old way, but easier.

It has a supposedly improved file finder and handler.

It has a histogram palette that shows the color channels all at the same time in a graph that is updated in real time as you make changes.

It has support for .raw camera files.

I'll come back to this thread after poking around with it personally for a bit to tell you how it seems to me if you want.