JPG or TIFF

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Mr. G D Geen wrote:
>
> > I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used the
> > NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe Elements
> > when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out. I want to
> > use the NEF image to produce some prints for family. Generally speaking
> > do JPG or TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
> > professional photoshop?
>
> I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a print that
> was made from a TIFF file and a print that was made from
> a low compression JPEG.

Hmm... I wonder about something: JPEGs are limited to 8 bits per
channel, right? 0 to 255 in each of red, green, and blue. I vaguely
recall that TIFF files allow greater color depth - something like 16
bits per channel - though most people are happy with 8 bits anyway. Do
cameras that save images in TIFF format take advantage of this extra
capability of TIFF, or do they also just use 8 bits/channel?

Or do I not even know what I'm talking about?

-Gniewko
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Dalmatian Labs:

http://www.dalmatianlab.com/resources/

Offers 16 bit Tiff printing by the Giclée printing process.

Matt Clara wrote:
> <lubecki DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156369942.397244.222010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Jim Townsend wrote:
> >> Mr. G D Geen wrote:
> >>
> >> > I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used
> >> > the
> >> > NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe
> >> > Elements
> >> > when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out. I want
> >> > to
> >> > use the NEF image to produce some prints for family. Generally
> >> > speaking
> >> > do JPG or TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
> >> > professional photoshop?
> >>
> >> I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a print that
> >> was made from a TIFF file and a print that was made from
> >> a low compression JPEG.
> >
> > Hmm... I wonder about something: JPEGs are limited to 8 bits per
> > channel, right? 0 to 255 in each of red, green, and blue. I vaguely
> > recall that TIFF files allow greater color depth - something like 16
> > bits per channel - though most people are happy with 8 bits anyway. Do
> > cameras that save images in TIFF format take advantage of this extra
> > capability of TIFF, or do they also just use 8 bits/channel?
> >
> > Or do I not even know what I'm talking about?
> >
> > -Gniewko
> >
>
> I don't know a printing service that will print from 16 bit images. They
> all ask that you convert to 8 bit first. Having said that, I think the JPG
> TIFF difference should be judged image by image, and just looking at the
> image on your monitor may not be enough. Instead, use the eye dropper and
> point at differing areas of your image, particularly in shadow areas, and
> read the RGB in the info panel (all photoshop, but many other softs have
> something equivalent). Having said _that_, I think low compression JPEGs
> are fine for most purposes, but TIFFS are great for your best work. Adorama
> will accept TIFFs for print via online upload, and they do nice work, too.
> West Coast Imaging will, too, but I save them for really big, top notch
> prints. I've got this one in 33 x 29 inch size (from 6x7 film, scanned with
> Nikon 8000ED, worked up in Photoshop and FTP'd to WCI:
> http://www.mattclara.com/connemara.html
>
> --
> Regards,
> Matt Clara
> www.mattclara.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

<lubecki.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156369942.397244.222010@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Jim Townsend wrote:
>> Mr. G D Geen wrote:
>>
>> > I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used
>> > the
>> > NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe
>> > Elements
>> > when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out. I want
>> > to
>> > use the NEF image to produce some prints for family. Generally
>> > speaking
>> > do JPG or TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
>> > professional photoshop?
>>
>> I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a print that
>> was made from a TIFF file and a print that was made from
>> a low compression JPEG.
>
> Hmm... I wonder about something: JPEGs are limited to 8 bits per
> channel, right? 0 to 255 in each of red, green, and blue. I vaguely
> recall that TIFF files allow greater color depth - something like 16
> bits per channel - though most people are happy with 8 bits anyway. Do
> cameras that save images in TIFF format take advantage of this extra
> capability of TIFF, or do they also just use 8 bits/channel?
>
> Or do I not even know what I'm talking about?
>
> -Gniewko
>

I don't know a printing service that will print from 16 bit images. They
all ask that you convert to 8 bit first. Having said that, I think the JPG
TIFF difference should be judged image by image, and just looking at the
image on your monitor may not be enough. Instead, use the eye dropper and
point at differing areas of your image, particularly in shadow areas, and
read the RGB in the info panel (all photoshop, but many other softs have
something equivalent). Having said _that_, I think low compression JPEGs
are fine for most purposes, but TIFFS are great for your best work. Adorama
will accept TIFFs for print via online upload, and they do nice work, too.
West Coast Imaging will, too, but I save them for really big, top notch
prints. I've got this one in 33 x 29 inch size (from 6x7 film, scanned with
Nikon 8000ED, worked up in Photoshop and FTP'd to WCI:
http://www.mattclara.com/connemara.html

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:38:58 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Mr. G D
>Geen" <geen.DeleteThis@ti.com> wrote:
>
>>Thank you everyone for your responses. I believe George is correct
>>about the NEF+JPEG being a low quality JPEG image as compared to a
>>Large+Fine JPEG produced image.
>
>You haven't mentioned which camera you have. The D50/D70/D70s all only
>allow NEF+Basic. The D200 and up coming D80 allow you select fine
>thru basic quality for the NEF+JPG modes.

Does it actually make any difference though?

I shoot RAW+JPEG with a D2x, but I've set the JPEG to be the
lowest quality (i.e., smallest file) it will do. I use the JPEG
for preview only, so actual quality is of little importance.

Because it is the smallest file size possible, I can immediately
and quickly download the JPG files, start a download on the NEF
files, and then go start looking at the JPG files while the NEF
files are being downloaded.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

George K wrote:
> Nikon provides the NEF + JPEG so one could preview the image (JPEG)
> without having to open Nikon View, Nikon Picture Project or Nikon
> Capture Editor for file management and using OS's that do not support
> viewing of NEF type files. The JPEG created in the Basic Large setting
> (3,008 x 2,000 pixels) so the quality will not be the same as JPEG Fine
> Large, but if one were to do multiple edits with multiple saves of both
> the NEF and JPEG images, the NEF will not lose quality while the JPEG
> will lose quality. The NEF format uses a losless compression method,
> while the JPEG format uses a lossy compression algorithm that losses
> information and quality with each succeeding saving of the image
>
> JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2:
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/
>
> Mr. G D Geen wrote:
>> I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used the
>> NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe Elements
>> when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out. I want to
>> use the NEF image to produce some prints for family. Generally speaking
>> do JPG or TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
>> professional photoshop? I will be converting my NEF files into one or
>> the other format for reproduction.
>>
>> thanks, -G
>
Thank you everyone for your responses. I believe George is correct
about the NEF+JPEG being a low quality JPEG image as compared to a
Large+Fine JPEG produced image. I am new to digital photography and
will start doing some experimentation in the next couple of weeks --
There is a lovely spider in the back garden who is dieing to have her
photo taken. Depending on my results, I think that shooting in NEF only
mode make the most sense. Adobe Photoshop Elements (tm) reads NEF files
natively.

I often take snaps but I almost never use anything less than Large+Fine.
I just don't see the point. Now I am thinking that I will start using
NEF only mode.

-G
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:

>
> Does it actually make any difference though?
>
> I shoot RAW+JPEG with a D2x, but I've set the JPEG to be the
> lowest quality (i.e., smallest file) it will do. I use the JPEG
> for preview only, so actual quality is of little importance.
>
> Because it is the smallest file size possible, I can immediately
> and quickly download the JPG files, start a download on the NEF
> files, and then go start looking at the JPG files while the NEF
> files are being downloaded.
>
Sorry for the oversight. I am using a D70. I bought it a couple of
years ago but it sat on the shelf for a while. I will likely use
NEF+JPEG(small) or just NEF only and go without the JPEG image. On the
MAC I have built in converters and Elements 4.0 reads the RAW images
natively so previewing is not a problem.

If I remember correctly, I don't have the camera with me, I have
NEF/NEF+JPEG(basic)/NEF+JPEG(large) and then the JPEG only
(basic/medium/large) formats. My issue with the JPEG images is the
color saturation. The RAW format just seems more real.

-G
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Mr. G D Geen wrote:
> I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used the
> NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe Elements
> when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out.

You should probably investigate this further.

There is no obvious reason why the JPEG image should look washed out
when the NEF one does not. Loss of some deep shadow detail is possible,
but washed out tends to suggest a mismatch between your default
settings for loading JPEGs and monitor gamma.

> use the NEF image to produce some prints for family. Generally speaking
> do JPG or TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
> professional photoshop? I will be converting my NEF files into one or
> the other format for reproduction.

If you use a highest quality JPEG compression with no chroma
subsampling in the final step the main limitation will be in the
dynamic range that the print paper can represent. I doubt even an
expert could distinguish prints from TIFF vs JPEG made at sensible dpi.
(it is possible to do in an image editor if you know exactly what to
look for)

I think you are blaming JPEG unfairly for a systematic error in your
set up.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Mr. G D Geen wrote:
> I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used the
> NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe Elements
> when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out. I want to
> use the NEF image to produce some prints for family. Generally speaking
> do JPG or TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
> professional photoshop? I will be converting my NEF files into one or
> the other format for reproduction.
>
> thanks, -G

For 4x6 snapshots, it really doesn't matter, but for anything larger,
the TIFF format would probably be the better choice.
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>Mr. G D Geen wrote:
>> I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year.
>> I used the NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images.
>> Using Adobe Elements when viewing I noticed that the JPG
>> image seems washed out. I want to use the NEF image to
>> produce some prints for family. Generally speaking do JPG or
>> TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
>> professional photoshop? I will be converting my NEF files
>> into one or the other format for reproduction.
>> thanks, -G
>
>For 4x6 snapshots, it really doesn't matter, but for anything
>larger, the TIFF format would probably be the better choice.

I won't make any difference for larger prints either. The
format is not significant.

However, some print shops may insist on one format or the other.
Also, if there is any custom adjustment to be done (contrast,
brightness, etc.), the TIFF format is then much preferred.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Mr. G D Geen wrote:
> I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year. I used the
> NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images. Using Adobe Elements
> when viewing I noticed that the JPG image seems washed out.


Once again, I thank you all for your responses. I am getting some good
information from all of you. To answer a couple of questions, my
developer, Wolf Camera, takes either JPEG for TIFF images and recommends
TIFF for larger format prints.

To answer Martin Brown more directly, I did not "blame" anything. I
merely observed a situation and then asked a group of people that had
more experience in this arena than I. This is how I learn.
Furthermore, the information you provide may be correct but at this
point I do not know. I will calibrate the monitor to see if that makes
a difference.

thanks. -G
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>> Mr. G D Geen wrote:
>>> I was looking at some of my pics I took in Hawaii this year.
>>> I used the NEF/JPG option on my Nikon when taking the images.
>>> Using Adobe Elements when viewing I noticed that the JPG
>>> image seems washed out. I want to use the NEF image to
>>> produce some prints for family. Generally speaking do JPG or
>>> TIFF images produce better photo print results from a
>>> professional photoshop? I will be converting my NEF files
>>> into one or the other format for reproduction.
>>> thanks, -G
>> For 4x6 snapshots, it really doesn't matter, but for anything
>> larger, the TIFF format would probably be the better choice.
>
> I won't make any difference for larger prints either. The
> format is not significant.
>
> However, some print shops may insist on one format or the other.
> Also, if there is any custom adjustment to be done (contrast,
> brightness, etc.), the TIFF format is then much preferred.
>
Of course it is significant. TIFF is a lossless format while JPG is
lossy. If the compression is set high enough, then the picture quality
can become unusable.
 >> Stay informed about: JPG or TIFF