What value is shoting in tif?

[1andyw]

Hi,

A dumb question.

I have shot scene A using a tripod, manual settings, full size jpg. The file size is 2.4MB. I then opened this shot and saved the result without change, as testA.tif. The file size is 14.4MB.

I re-shot scene A changing nothing except the mode to tif. The file size is 14.4MB. This is sceenA.tif.

Comparing sceenA.tif with testA.tif at the settings of 100% and 400%, I can detect no difference in the quality. The histograms are identical, near as I can tell.

The benefit to me is that I can save the original at 2.4MB and not 14.4MB both on the memory card and on the 'save' CD.

I must be missing something or no one would be using the tif mode.

Where am I going wrong?

Thanks,

Andy

[genece]

IMHO ....tiff is a waste of time and effort.

[tim11]

Technically TIFF is a lossless compression format while JPEG is a lossy compression format.
However, I can't seem to visually detect any different between the 2 formats and TIFF doesn't seem to have any advantage in post processing. Hence, I agree with Genece. It's just a waste of space on the memory cards.

[John_Reed]

Hi,

A dumb question.

I have shot scene A using a tripod, manual settings, full size jpg. The file size is 2.4MB. I then opened this shot and saved the result without change, as testA.tif. The file size is 14.4MB.

I re-shot scene A changing nothing except the mode to tif. The file size is 14.4MB. This is sceenA.tif.

Comparing sceenA.tif with testA.tif at the settings of 100% and 400%, I can detect no difference in the quality. The histograms are identical, near as I can tell.

The benefit to me is that I can save the original at 2.4MB and not 14.4MB both on the memory card and on the 'save' CD.

I must be missing something or no one would be using the tif mode.

Where am I going wrong?

Thanks,

AndyAccording to ancient DCRP master Andy Baird, there IS virtually no difference in the quality of a TIFF image, and a corresponding JPG "Fine" image. I've compared pixel X pixel myself more than once, and even JPG "Standard" doesn't lose much. The problem with JPG files is that they ARE lossy with their compression. If you edit the JPG file and re-compress it to save again, you'll lose a little, and a little more each time you edit & save. To avoid cumulative losses, ALWAYS save the original JPG file, and edit ONLY copies of this image.

Another bad thing about TIFF images is that they destroy the high-performance capabilities of any camera. (Well, OK, non-dSLR cameras without huge image buffers) No high burst rates, no fast shot-shot times, you just have to wait for the big file to get transferred, and because it's so big, you don't get as many shots on the card. (In your case, 60 images/GB?)

So, as Gene said already, TIFF isn't worth using.

[1andyw]

Thanks, folks.

Andy

[Gordoaus]

Agree with what has been said above.
If you want to use TIFF when editing a pic so that you don't lose resolution and quality as opposed to JPG, take your shots in RAW mode and convert to TIFF via software after downloading them to your computer. A pic taken in RAW mode is around 13 megs compared to 23 with TIFF in the FZ-30 at 8mp.
I use JPG for bright light shots and RAW for the shot I am not sure about so that I can make changes to the pic before I save it in either JPG or TIFF format.
From what I can understand from some of the camera buffs I have spoken to is that they use TIFF when printing.
If you have a JPG for instance and you want to make some changes to it, save it in TIFF first and do the editing in TIFF mode (especially with multiple saves) and supposedly it will maintain the origional quality of the pic when you make changes whereas if you do it in JPG you always lose quality. The more times you edit and save (the same pic that is) in JPG the faster the quality drops off each time it is saved.
For a one off edit and save you can hardly tell the difference to a JPG unless you reduce the quality of the save deliberately to make the actual file size smaller.
HTH

[MindBender]

If you use Photoshop, a couple things that TIFFs can do that JPEG can't:

TIFFs can be saved with Photoshop layers without changing format.
TIFFs can be saved with alpha transparency for use with other programs, JPEGs can't use any kind of transparency.
TIFFs (as mentioned) are lossless (in their default format) and won't lose any quality when saved and resaved... although you should always work on a copy for the simple reason that working off the original is a good way to make a mistake and lose your original irretrievably.

Unless these are things you need to do, a JPEG at "highest" level of quality won't be much different from a TIFF in terms of image quality. JPEGs don't use much compression at their highest quality level, so the images are pretty much fine. If you drop below a quality level of 80% you'll be able to see artifacts pretty easily in most cases. Also, as was mentioned, each time a JPEG is saved... even at high quality... there is quality loss. The compression algorithm used for JPEGs is "lossy" and you get those tell tale boxy JPEG artifacts (you know the ones) after you save a couple times.

It really depends on your final destination and the quality of your camera. I had a VERY old ( .9 mp ) camera that would shoot in TIFF or JPEG... unfortunately the JPEGs weren't "high quality" and would come out with JPEG artifacts. So I shot in TIFF... this was many moons ago. Most modern cameras deal with JPEG better and you shouldn't have any problems using their JPEG mode as long as you use the higher quality settings.