JPG->TIFF->JPG

On Mar 21, 1:53 pm, "Nervous Nick" <nervous.n... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:18 am, Caien <c... DeleteThis @bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality JPG's. Does it
> > make any sense to convert them to TIFF files for the purposes of
> > munipulation, and then convert the finished photo back to a JPG.
>
> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided that yes,
> that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress each time you re-save
> them and therefore you are losing more data each time you do so.
> Normally I don't worry too much about such issues because the final
> product is only going to be viewed on a monitor, but even if server
> space is the only concern this still seems a sensible practice.

It only makes sense for preventing degradation of work in progress.
And usually you are better off using the native lossless format of
whichever package you are using as that can retain other information
about layers and masks.

JPG isn't a good choice for saving intermediate results, but unless
you have shares in a disk driver company you are not gaining anything
by expanding JPEGs to TIFF files just for the sake of it.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

On Mar 21, 10:48 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n... RemoveThis @none.sn> wrote:
> Today, Martin Brown made these interesting comments ...
>
>
>
> >> > On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality
> >> > JPG's. Does it make any sense to convert them to TIFF files
> >> > for the purposes of munipulation, and then convert the
> >> > finished photo back to a JPG.
>
> >> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided
> >> that yes, that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress each
> >> time you re-save them and therefore you are losing more data
> >> each time you do so. Normally I don't worry too much about
> >> such issues because the final product is only going to be
> >> viewed on a monitor, but even if server space is the only
> >> concern this still seems a sensible practice.
>
> > It only makes sense for preventing degradation of work in
> > progress. And usually you are better off using the native
> > lossless format of whichever package you are using as that can
> > retain other information about layers and masks.
>
> > JPG isn't a good choice for saving intermediate results, but
> > unless you have shares in a disk driver company you are not
> > gaining anything by expanding JPEGs to TIFF files just for the
> > sake of it.
>
> JPEG is fine for intermediate saves IF you change the file name for
> each iteration. It is not uncommon for me to save 2, 4, 6, or more
> versions and delete the obvious baddies when done.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry


This is not correct, any save with a jpeg degrades the image. If you
have a refference that supports the change the file name theory please
let me know, it would mean a major rethink on handling jpegs on my
part.
If you can edit a jpeg with one session then you are probably OK. But
to be safe use either TIF of PSD (if using layers in Photoshop) while
editing. I can never get the image I want in one edit. As everyone
has said save your original jpeg and back it up. Hardrives are big and
cheap, unless you are saving thousands of images there is no reason
to worry about TIF files. As you said you can go back to jpeg at the
end anyway. Still like RAW better especially because of the 16 bit
(really 12bit) file handling.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

Nervous Nick wrote:

> On Mar 21, 7:18 am, Caien <c....RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality JPG's. Does it
>>make any sense to convert them to TIFF files for the purposes of
>>munipulation, and then convert the finished photo back to a JPG.
>
>
> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided that yes,
> that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress each time you re-save
> them and therefore you are losing more data each time you do so.
> Normally I don't worry too much about such issues because the final
> product is only going to be viewed on a monitor, but even if server
> space is the only concern this still seems a sensible practice.
>
> --
> YOP...
>

To avoid the loss due to successive recompressions, I try to not
save intermediate copies. I keep the original .JPG, and then make
all changes (color correction, rotation, cropping, etc.) before
committing to one final save. If a correction doesn't work out,
I either back out of that correction by ^Z, or restart by closing
without saving and then re-opening the original .JPG.

And I use save settings for the largest file possible, which means
minimal compression and minimal loss.
--
Cheers, Bob
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

In article <1174490291.402838.239980 RemoveThis @b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
tomm42 <tmonego RemoveThis @wildblue.net> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 10:48 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n... RemoveThis @none.sn> wrote:
> > Today, Martin Brown made these interesting comments ...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> > On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality
> > >> > JPG's. Does it make any sense to convert them to TIFF files
> > >> > for the purposes of munipulation, and then convert the
> > >> > finished photo back to a JPG.
> >
> > >> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided
> > >> that yes, that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress each
> > >> time you re-save them and therefore you are losing more data
> > >> each time you do so. Normally I don't worry too much about
> > >> such issues because the final product is only going to be
> > >> viewed on a monitor, but even if server space is the only
> > >> concern this still seems a sensible practice.
> >
> > > It only makes sense for preventing degradation of work in
> > > progress. And usually you are better off using the native
> > > lossless format of whichever package you are using as that can
> > > retain other information about layers and masks.
> >
> > > JPG isn't a good choice for saving intermediate results, but
> > > unless you have shares in a disk driver company you are not
> > > gaining anything by expanding JPEGs to TIFF files just for the
> > > sake of it.
> >
> > JPEG is fine for intermediate saves IF you change the file name for
> > each iteration. It is not uncommon for me to save 2, 4, 6, or more
> > versions and delete the obvious baddies when done.
> >
> > --
> > HP, aka Jerry
>
>
> This is not correct, any save with a jpeg degrades the image. If you
> have a refference that supports the change the file name theory please
> let me know, it would mean a major rethink on handling jpegs on my
> part.

I think that what he's saying is that he saves copies as he's working
on it [without closing the original file at any point], rather than
saving them and reopening them to continue to work, therefore he's
still working on the *original* image, just saving it in multiple
versions. There's no more loss doing it that way, because even the
final version is still a "first generation save" from the original.

HOWEVER, if he were to have to go back to one of those copies to
retrace [or vary] his steps at any point, then he starts introducing
the compound loss errors, because the *copy* he saved, whether it be
version 2, 4, or 364, DID get compressed when saved, so opening it
starts from that [lossy] compressed version, introdusing even further
loss. Not to mention that any layers, paths, masks, or channels that
might have been created and used in Photoshop (or other such programs)
are lost when saving to the .jpg format. To me, the savings in disk
space is not worth that.

> If you can edit a jpeg with one session then you are probably OK.

Exactly. He apparently can do that - I rarely can. ;^) I tweak, go
back the next day and look again, play around some more, lather, rinse,
repeat.

> But
> to be safe use either TIF of PSD (if using layers in Photoshop) while
> editing.

You can also save layers in .tifs from PS, but it really boosts the
filesize over the equivalent saves using .psd files.

> I can never get the image I want in one edit. As everyone
> has said save your original jpeg and back it up. Hardrives are big and
> cheap, unless you are saving thousands of images there is no reason
> to worry about TIF files. As you said you can go back to jpeg at the
> end anyway.

Yes, although the *only* reason I can see to use .jpgs is for the web.
All my printing (and even my web .jpg creation) is done from Aperture
(directly from the raw+adjustments) or Photoshop (from .psds made from
those raw+adjustments and exported from Aperture, so I can apply size
and media specific sharpening). I wouldn't want to lose even the
tiniest detail because of compression loss for my prints.

> Still like RAW better especially because of the 16 bit
> (really 12bit) file handling.

Agreed.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

Today, Caien made these interesting comments ...

> On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality JPG's.
> Does it make any sense to convert them to TIFF files for the
> purposes of munipulation, and then convert the finished photo
> back to a JPG.
>
Yes and no. First, ALWAYS put the files no matter what format from
your camera's memory card(s) and put them some place safe, at least
in a sub-folder under where you intend to save the final versions.
ALWAYS back the folder(s) up! Now, when you do start on your post
processing, to whatever workflow you think works best for you,
ALWAYS work on a COPY of the original. The format(s) you decide on
really are determined by the feature(s) you want to save. e.g., if
you want to save layers and vector data, then you must save in a
lossless format, likely one proprietary to your fav graphics app.
If you want to share on the web or Usenet, JPEG may be the best,
although many people also use PNG and TIFF. If you want to save
EXIF, you CANNOT compress TIFF, they won't carry EXIF.

As long as you do not perform multiple edit-save-reedit-save-
reedit-save cycles on JPEGs you won't get any degradation. A MINOR
re-edit may be OK if you were circumspect on how much compression
you used in the first place. But, I try to start anew with the
original if I find I've made a blunder.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

Today, Martin Brown made these interesting comments ...

>> > On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality
>> > JPG's. Does it make any sense to convert them to TIFF files
>> > for the purposes of munipulation, and then convert the
>> > finished photo back to a JPG.
>>
>> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided
>> that yes, that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress each
>> time you re-save them and therefore you are losing more data
>> each time you do so. Normally I don't worry too much about
>> such issues because the final product is only going to be
>> viewed on a monitor, but even if server space is the only
>> concern this still seems a sensible practice.
>
> It only makes sense for preventing degradation of work in
> progress. And usually you are better off using the native
> lossless format of whichever package you are using as that can
> retain other information about layers and masks.
>
> JPG isn't a good choice for saving intermediate results, but
> unless you have shares in a disk driver company you are not
> gaining anything by expanding JPEGs to TIFF files just for the
> sake of it.
>
JPEG is fine for intermediate saves IF you change the file name for
each iteration. It is not uncommon for me to save 2, 4, 6, or more
versions and delete the obvious baddies when done.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

Today, Bob Willard made these interesting comments ...

>>>On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality JPG's.
>>>Does it make any sense to convert them to TIFF files for the
>>>purposes of munipulation, and then convert the finished photo
>>>back to a JPG.
>>
>> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided
>> that yes, that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress each
>> time you re-save them and therefore you are losing more data
>> each time you do so. Normally I don't worry too much about
>> such issues because the final product is only going to be
>> viewed on a monitor, but even if server space is the only
>> concern this still seems a sensible practice.
>
> To avoid the loss due to successive recompressions, I try to
> not save intermediate copies. I keep the original .JPG, and
> then make all changes (color correction, rotation, cropping,
> etc.) before committing to one final save. If a correction
> doesn't work out, I either back out of that correction by ^Z,
> or restart by closing without saving and then re-opening the
> original .JPG.
>
> And I use save settings for the largest file possible, which
> means minimal compression and minimal loss.

Intermediate saves to some format, whether it is a simple BMP,
TIFF, PSD, PNG, something is really quite necessary to avoid either
an editing blunder or - God Forbid! - Windows or your graphics app
dies. If you're really concerned, set an auto-backup from your fav
app to say, 10 minutes.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

Caien wrote:
> On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality JPG's. Does it
> make any sense to convert them to TIFF files for the purposes of
> munipulation, and then convert the finished photo back to a JPG.

Even better, use a format that keeps the information so that
you can use the revert function to step back trough the
changes. In Paint Shop Pro, it is the psp format.
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

In article <1302narqrhbj30c RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>, Marvin
<physchem RemoveThis @cloud9.net> wrote:

> Caien wrote:
> > On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality JPG's. Does it
> > make any sense to convert them to TIFF files for the purposes of
> > munipulation, and then convert the finished photo back to a JPG.
>
> Even better, use a format that keeps the information so that
> you can use the revert function to step back trough the
> changes. In Paint Shop Pro, it is the psp format.

Yeah, this is ONE thing I wish Photoshop would do - keep the history of
changes saved with the file, or perhaps in an .xmp sidecar file. Not
enough to make me want to switch programs, but just something I wish
that it did.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

Today, tomm42 made these interesting comments ...

> On Mar 21, 10:48 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n... DeleteThis @none.sn> wrote:
>> Today, Martin Brown made these interesting comments ...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > On a recent trip, I took all my photos in high quality
>> >> > JPG's. Does it make any sense to convert them to TIFF
>> >> > files for the purposes of munipulation, and then convert
>> >> > the finished photo back to a JPG.
>>
>> >> I was wondering the very same thing yesterday. I decided
>> >> that yes, that is the way to go, since jpegs recompress
>> >> each time you re-save them and therefore you are losing
>> >> more data each time you do so. Normally I don't worry too
>> >> much about such issues because the final product is only
>> >> going to be viewed on a monitor, but even if server space
>> >> is the only concern this still seems a sensible practice.
>>
>> > It only makes sense for preventing degradation of work in
>> > progress. And usually you are better off using the native
>> > lossless format of whichever package you are using as that
>> > can retain other information about layers and masks.
>>
>> > JPG isn't a good choice for saving intermediate results,
>> > but unless you have shares in a disk driver company you are
>> > not gaining anything by expanding JPEGs to TIFF files just
>> > for the sake of it.
>>
>> JPEG is fine for intermediate saves IF you change the file
>> name for each iteration. It is not uncommon for me to save 2,
>> 4, 6, or more versions and delete the obvious baddies when
>> done.
>
> This is not correct, any save with a jpeg degrades the image.
> If you have a refference that supports the change the file
> name theory please let me know, it would mean a major rethink
> on handling jpegs on my part.
> If you can edit a jpeg with one session then you are probably
> OK. But to be safe use either TIF of PSD (if using layers in
> Photoshop) while editing. I can never get the image I want in
> one edit. As everyone has said save your original jpeg and
> back it up. Hardrives are big and cheap, unless you are
> saving thousands of images there is no reason to worry about
> TIF files. As you said you can go back to jpeg at the end
> anyway. Still like RAW better especially because of the 16 bit
> (really 12bit) file handling.
>
Try to read my post carefully, please. Yes, of course, all JPEG
saves degrade the image, but unless you are a pro and intend to
sell prints in some outlandish size like 16 x 20 or 24 x 36, it
is a rare person who can detect damage when the image is properly
processed. Of course, it matters not what format is used if the
camera and the person standing behind it are not skilled.

And, I believe I qualified my comments in the light of more than
a dozen years of experience in this game, all of it as a
hobbyist. In my experience, FAR more damage is done by using
inferior equipment and from not being nearly skilled enough to
properly post-process their images.

I suppose now we'll start the perennial "the more mega pixels the
better the picture", just so much hogwash unless properly
qualified a dozen ways from Sunday.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG 

tomm42 wrote:
>> JPEG is fine for intermediate saves IF you change the file name for
>> each iteration. It is not uncommon for me to save 2, 4, 6, or more
>> versions and delete the obvious baddies when done.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>
>
> This is not correct, any save with a jpeg degrades the image. If you
> have a refference that supports the change the file name theory please
> let me know, it would mean a major rethink on handling jpegs on my
> part.

I think HP is merely doing multiple save-as within a single
editing session (I hope).

Therefore all the edits are cumulative
on the original open'd JPEG, and the save-as
degradation is NOT cumulative.

BugBear (guessing)
 >> Stay informed about: JPG-&gt;TIFF-&gt;JPG