Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 25, 2004, 12:12 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 141
Default

I swear I posted this earlier today - but it has disappeared.

As I understand it, TIFF files are significantly larger than JPEG files, because the TIFF files are not compressed. TIFF therefore contains more 'information' than JPEG.

Will a TIFF image produce a better print than a 'Fine', highest resolution JPEG image, assuming that they came from the same camera, and that no editing or converting was done?

Will TIFF images be better than 'Fine', highest resolution JPEG images for larger prints (11x14 and beyond)?

If yes, why?

If not, why not?

Thanks.


EOS RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 25, 2004, 5:33 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


Tiff is not a practical option:

"TIFFs are used only in tethered studio applications, if ever, for camera capture. Tiffs don't have any of the post-processing advantages of RAW and have enormous file sizes that will completely clog up any workflow if you are shooting many images on cards."

"The JPG format is adjustable for quality vs. file size. Larger JPGs, which is what cameras record, record enough data, especially at the milder compression settings (FINE on Nikon and Canon) so that these artifacts don't occur. JPGs at the correct quality settings have no visible artifacts. Play with this yourself as I have: make a bunch of photos at the different settings (including RAW) and put them all up on your screen at 100%. You'll see for yourself."

If you want tiff -> shoot in RAW and get tiff from the post-processing: save space in the flash cards (and battery power), quicker camera response, and get both 8 or 16-bit tiff at the PC!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 7:37 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Default

Am I right in saying that you can get very low to uncompressed *.jpg files?

Isn't .jpgcapable of simply compressing data by re-ordering it's allocation then by actually throwing data away?


redundo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2004, 7:55 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/preamble.html
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2004, 12:18 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 141
Default

Thanks.

This is like being back in school... Read, read, read.... Absorb, absorb... Read, read.... Take a break to let it sink in properly... Read, read...
EOS RT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2004, 6:06 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Yeap

This is how digital has changed the photographing landscape...
Folks use to turn in their canisters to the photofinishers and pay for the service. It'll take time but we can still complain if we don't like the results.

We can service our pictures quicker now in our home, but have no one to blame but ourself! Better get good @ it
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:48 PM.