JPEG to TIFF

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I have a friend for whom I've made a number of matted frames. She has requested that I use some of the photos she's taken of her kids to fill these frames but most of them require some work. These JPEG images have come from a Canon 40D (she doesn't shoot in RAW) and were shot on a medium/fine setting. Would it be beneficial for me to convert these JPEGS to TIFFS for the purpose of editing? Space is not an issue for me, especially since I can delete the files after printing. Would it be worth my while or am I just adding unnecessary steps to my workflow? In general, does converting JPEG to TIFF effectively halt the lossy nature of JPEG?</p>

<p>The largest print will be 8x10 with the smallest being 4x6. Many will be cropped, some by more than 50%. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Well, when you are working on an image it is in neither format, it is when you save it that it becomes one or the other. The problem with saving a file that was originally a jpeg back as a jpeg is that you just lose that much more data. You would be better off opening the file, working it and then saving it as a tiff or PSD if you need to save it before or after printing it. If you must go to jpeg again, go at the very highest quality setting.</p>

 

[acbeddoe]

<p>I don't think there's much to be gained. You only lose data when you save the JPG, so don't save it; and certainly don't overwrite the original.<br>

Open the original, edit for print, and print it. If you like to save a copy for subsequent prints, then saving as TIFF makes sense.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>"Would it be beneficial for me to convert these JPEGS to TIFFS for the purpose of editing?"</p>

<p>It depends of how many times you plan to edit these files. Let say you plan to do a little bit of editing each days for the next two weeks (14 edits and saves), it is worth while to save it to 16 bits TIFF file. If all you plan to do is open it up and spend a few minutes of editing, there is no benefit. </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>More details. The benefit of TIF file is when you save, the next time you continue where you left off. There are no JPEG compression loss. The benefit of "16 bit" TIF file verse standard 8 bit JPEG (assuming your editor support 16 bit TIF) is that you minimize between steps round off error. For example if you pay $1 to 99 cents. Let it ride 100 times, you owe $2.70 instead of $1. </p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I apologize for my question being a little convoluted. Fortunately, the smart folks here deciphered it.</p>

<p>So all things being equal, it <em>could</em> benefit me to save as TIFF. That doesn't necessarily mean that it <em>will</em> but it would be the safer approach, not knowing how many times I may need to edit a particular image. Is that a fair summation?</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Hi Jeff. I normally shoot JPEG highest quality and any images that I want to print but require post processing (i.e. levels and/or cropping etc) are first converted to TIFF, edited, and saved as TIFF then printed. I keep the final edited TIFF image in case I need to print further copies to ensure consistency of output. This appears to be what you were asking. regards, cb :-)</p>

[pmj]

<p>Jeff: yes, saving as TIFF is the safer approach, just in case you do need to re-open, edit and save a file multiple times.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p> it <em>could</em> benefit me to save as TIFF</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but only insofar as (save,resave, open...)</p>

<p>It gains you nothing in image quality.</p>

<p>Saving in 16 bit tiff is unnecessary as the original jpeg is 8 bits. You can't make more from less.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Thanks everyone. It was my intention to convert them to 8-bit TIFF after editing and then, depending on what needed to be done in subsequent edits either start with the saved TIFF or start over with the original (un-edited) jpeg and then save that as another TIFF when I'm finished. I never delete anything until the project is complete because too many times I hear, "Hmmm, this is nice but the more I think about it, I liked the first one you did the best."</p>

[andrew_martin11]

<p>Kevin: To be honest, if you convert the file to 16-bit first and do massive editing, say to levels and curves, you can smooth out color transition. It is minimal, but when you reconvert to 8-bit you have more information to use.<br>

Though, it is very minimal, but I have seen little quality change from a 8-bit and 16-bit image (raw to .psd) on large scale printing (17 by 44 in).</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>It is minimal, but when you reconvert to 8-bit you have more information to use.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can find no evidence to support that statement.<br>

My advice to the OP was for purely compression reasons when opening and resaving.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The OP said they shoot in jpeg.</p>

<p>and...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In general, does converting JPEG to TIFF effectively halt the lossy nature of JPEG?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a yes since TIFF is a lossless file type.<br>

This has nothing to do with the amount of data available.</p>

<p>While some software attempts to interpolate/extrapolate data, it can not create any (useful) bits if they are not present to begin with.</p>

<p> </p>