Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Post processing age old debate!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 354682" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>That certainly was a popular philosophy, in scanner days (scanning film and photo prints), at least until camera Raw files became available.</p><p></p><p>TIFF and JPEG are the exact same RGB image (RGB converted from the original camera Raw file). The difference is in the later file compression. TIFF just has no JPEG artifacts. And also, TIF files can be 16 bit color, where JPG is limited to 8 bits. Otherwise, they are equal RGB images, except for the added JPG artifacts.</p><p></p><p> Converting a JPG to TIF still copies the original JPG artifacts (nothing removes them), but TIF does not add more. So if you are going to edit the image several times, saving it each time, then TIF is a proper way to go. Then you only have the first set of JPG artifacts, and the final set of JPG artifacts (if you convert back to JPG for use when done - but this is not always necessary), but no more. No more JPG artifacts at every edit Save as JPG - which accumulate and add up. Plus the 16 bits is superior for drastic tonal shifts during edit. Cameras and scanners are 12 bits internally for the White Balance and Gamma shifts, it is necessary. White Balance correction is more poorly done in JPG images.</p><p></p><p>Raw is the same way in this JPG artifact respect, except it also of course omits any original JPG artifacts too. And Raw is 12 or 14 bits, same advantage of 16 bit TIF (since it all comes from the first camera Raw file - any 16 bit conversion is the same 12 bit data stored in 16 bit computer words). At any later edit, today, or next month, we always simply discard any temporary (expendable) JPG, and go back to the original Raw file (which is always the pristine original Raw file, but the edit data since is also saved). This is lossless editing, another pretty big deal/advantage (TIF and JPG are NOT lossless editing, tones are shifted back and forth). So with Raw editing, we simply change our edit, and output a replacement JPG. The only JPG artifacts are in the one final save, hopefully we choose High JPG Quality.</p><p></p><p>The only proper solution (for Raw) is to archive the original Raw file, which is NEVER modified itself (lossless editing). The list of edits is saved, and the toneal values are shifted only the one final time at JPG output (not back and forth repeatedly). Raw offers many advantages. IMO, the biggest one is that we edit it AFTER we can actually see it, and then KNOW what this one needs, instead of in the primitive camera settings made before we even arrive at the scene. </p><p></p><p> The Raw file stores 1.5 bytes per pixel (12 bits), where a 16 bit TIF file is 6 bytes per pixel, and a 8 bit JPG (not a very good archive) is 3 bytes per pixel (and the JPG file is compressed much smaller, maybe to say 10% that size, more or less). But small file size is not the property we seek. Image quality is the desired property, and a small JPG is counterproductive to that.</p><p></p><p>Actually, JPG sort of sucks, unless we are just totally incapable of doing anything about it. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Mine is more of a purist attitude (biased), but JPG, at its very best, is almost good enough. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 354682, member: 12496"] That certainly was a popular philosophy, in scanner days (scanning film and photo prints), at least until camera Raw files became available. TIFF and JPEG are the exact same RGB image (RGB converted from the original camera Raw file). The difference is in the later file compression. TIFF just has no JPEG artifacts. And also, TIF files can be 16 bit color, where JPG is limited to 8 bits. Otherwise, they are equal RGB images, except for the added JPG artifacts. Converting a JPG to TIF still copies the original JPG artifacts (nothing removes them), but TIF does not add more. So if you are going to edit the image several times, saving it each time, then TIF is a proper way to go. Then you only have the first set of JPG artifacts, and the final set of JPG artifacts (if you convert back to JPG for use when done - but this is not always necessary), but no more. No more JPG artifacts at every edit Save as JPG - which accumulate and add up. Plus the 16 bits is superior for drastic tonal shifts during edit. Cameras and scanners are 12 bits internally for the White Balance and Gamma shifts, it is necessary. White Balance correction is more poorly done in JPG images. Raw is the same way in this JPG artifact respect, except it also of course omits any original JPG artifacts too. And Raw is 12 or 14 bits, same advantage of 16 bit TIF (since it all comes from the first camera Raw file - any 16 bit conversion is the same 12 bit data stored in 16 bit computer words). At any later edit, today, or next month, we always simply discard any temporary (expendable) JPG, and go back to the original Raw file (which is always the pristine original Raw file, but the edit data since is also saved). This is lossless editing, another pretty big deal/advantage (TIF and JPG are NOT lossless editing, tones are shifted back and forth). So with Raw editing, we simply change our edit, and output a replacement JPG. The only JPG artifacts are in the one final save, hopefully we choose High JPG Quality. The only proper solution (for Raw) is to archive the original Raw file, which is NEVER modified itself (lossless editing). The list of edits is saved, and the toneal values are shifted only the one final time at JPG output (not back and forth repeatedly). Raw offers many advantages. IMO, the biggest one is that we edit it AFTER we can actually see it, and then KNOW what this one needs, instead of in the primitive camera settings made before we even arrive at the scene. The Raw file stores 1.5 bytes per pixel (12 bits), where a 16 bit TIF file is 6 bytes per pixel, and a 8 bit JPG (not a very good archive) is 3 bytes per pixel (and the JPG file is compressed much smaller, maybe to say 10% that size, more or less). But small file size is not the property we seek. Image quality is the desired property, and a small JPG is counterproductive to that. Actually, JPG sort of sucks, unless we are just totally incapable of doing anything about it. :) Mine is more of a purist attitude (biased), but JPG, at its very best, is almost good enough. :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Post processing age old debate!
Top
