TIFF vs JPEG

[hubert45]

I'm using a LUMIX FZ20. What is the actual difference between TIFF and JPEG files, except the size. The pixel size (and therefore image definition) doesnt seem to be different.In which conditions should I preferably use TIFF instead of JPEG ?

Thank you for your help.

Hubert45

[MindBender]

TIFF is an uncompressed format. So anything you get out of it will be exactly what the camera captured.

JPEG is a compressed format... meaning that it's possible to get artifacts or pixelation in the image that wasn't from the capture but from the compression. This means, in laymans terms, that you could get less quality out of a JPEG.

TIFF is a larger file than JPEG by quite a bit... because of the JPEG compression.

JPEG is much more widely supported... like by web browsers and image viewers than TIFF, so unless you are planning on opening the TIFFs and resaving them as JPEGs or some other format... you might want JPEGs to be what's coming out of the camera.

In real world practice, most newer digital cameras (read that as in the last few years) take pretty good JPEGs and don't over compress them to make them awful, especially if you use the higher quality settings.

If you're very concerned with getting a very clean picture to import into Photoshop or something... you might want to use the TIFF format, otherwise, JPEG is probably fine for you.

[hubert45]

Thank you for your prompt and clear answer !

Hubert45

[John_Reed]

Mindbender's excellent answer referred to file size, but one additional factor makes TIFF files really less attractive, and that's camera speed. If you like to use burst or continuous shooting modes on your FZ20, like fast shot-shot times, forget it with TIFF. The files are so large that they really slow the camera down. A few years back someone on this forum posted a test where they compared a TIFF image pixel by pixel with a JPEG image, and found the differences to be trivial, if not non-existent. Go for JPEG!

[hubert45]

Thank you for these additional comments. Indeed, I could not observe any visible difference between TIFF and JPEG images. I take your point that TIFF should not be used except in very specific situations (still to be identified, as far as I am concerned).

Hubert 45

[gwhizkids]

One more note about the difference between JPEGs and TIFFs -- every time you open and resave a JPEG file, it is recompressed even if you didn't do anything to the file. That means that you lose data everytime you open the file. Thus, you might want to take a photo as a TIFF, work on it and only when you are done with any modifications, save it as a JPEG to save space.

RAW files for some reason are less bulky than TIFFs, so you might want to explore using those instead (Note, however, that you might need to obtain a RAW converter to work with the file. There are several free converters that other users have had some success with).

[hubert45]

Well noted.

Thanks.

[genece]

It is my understanding the below quote is not exactly correct.
To open and close a JPEG causes no lose at all, any work you do and then save does however, so even if you open it and rotate it there was a loss (Some argue that is not so ?)
If you use a Photo editor that allows you to use layers...open the file or a copy of the file(also no loss) and make a duplicate layer and edit it, then save as another name ( I do P1000345 to P1000345a ) and save that either as a JPEG or Tiff or PSD...no loss to the original or the tiff or psd.

The point I am trying to make is I see no need to use tiff.



One more note about the difference between JPEGs and TIFFs -- every time you open and resave a JPEG file, it is recompressed even if you didn't do anything to the file. That means that you lose data everytime you open the file. Thus, you might want to take a photo as a TIFF, work on it and only when you are done with any modifications, save it as a JPEG to save space.

RAW files for some reason are less bulky than TIFFs, so you might want to explore using those instead (Note, however, that you might need to obtain a RAW converter to work with the file. There are several free converters that other users have had some success with).

[hubert45]

Thank you !

All these contributions improved my knowledge a lot !!

[MindBender]

It is my understanding the below quote is not exactly correct.
To open and close a JPEG causes no lose at all, any work you do and then save does however, so even if you open it and rotate it there was a loss (Some argue that is not so ?)


gwhizkids has it correct, and so do you in respect to compression. Just have to read it more closely I think. If you open a JPEG and close it... nothing changes. If you open a JPEG and save it you are recompressing it and it will degrade slightly. Every time you save a JPEG in JPEG format, the file is compressed and there is some degradation introduced. This is true of pretty much every operation that move or change pixels.

Here's the thing... you probably won't notice. The changes that are introduced in most cases (assuming you don't scale massively or compress heavily) are negligible. They're there... but they aren't anything you can notice without consulting pixel counts and histograms. So... if it looks good... who cares?


If you use a Photo editor that allows you to use layers...open the file or a copy of the file(also no loss) and make a duplicate layer and edit it, then save as another name ( I do P1000345 to P1000345a ) and save that either as a JPEG or Tiff or PSD...no loss to the original or the tiff or psd.

If you open the document, in say Photoshop, and duplicate the layer... then save the document out... it will save as PSD. Since PSD is a lossless, non-compressed format, there will be no loss of quality. If you saved it as a JPEG though, there would be since it would have to be recompressed. The big thing here is the compression. Because JPEG is a lossy (it removes quality data to make files smaller) format, anytime you run something through the JPEG processing, it will lose at least a little bit of quality. A non-compressed TIFF (they come in both varieties, compressed or non-compressed) or a PSD, or a PNG (in most cases) or any of quite a few file types will not suffer quality loss from resaving, unless you do something in your editing to reduce quality (like the afore mentioned scaling, which is a biggie). You're right, if you open the file and save it as a different copy, then you aren't damaging the file... it's always a good idea to work off a copy anyway... no matter what you're doing. Not only do I usually work off of a copy, I generally don't even work in the same directory as my originals. I have one area to store my original files that is organized by date or other relevant information... and then I create work directories for my editing and final graphics.

The point I am trying to make is I see no need to use tiff.

The only reason to use TIFF would be because there is a possibility of quality loss directly from the camera. If you have your settings in the camera set to a lower JPEG level... the originals will be crappy.

In practice, it's rarely necessary to use anything but JPEG for most shots. Some shots, especially portraits, you want all the data you can get... like RAW... which adds more dynamic range due to the different color mode. Sometimes cameras with TIFF modes can produce high bit depth TIFFs... but this isn't really common I don't believe. If you can't shoot in RAW because of the limitations of your camera, and your TIFFs are 8-bit RGB color...then using high quality mode JPEGs is going to serve you fine. Just make sure you work on a copy and don't resave your originals.

Hope that was somewhat helpful... :)

[genece]

Well explained Mindbender.

IMHO I will trade in any benifit there may be to tiff in order to keep burst mode....I feel I have a better chance of getting the near perfect shot with burst mode.....at times I take too many photos but how do I put a limit on that, as so many times the photo in the middle of the burst is the best of everything.

[hubert45]

Many thanks. Indeed I had noted a slight compression when saving JPEG files, depending on the image processor you are using. I appreciate the suggestion to save a "full" file before processing it.