So what is the deal with request for a TIFF file for sending by e mail

[GerrySiegel]

Here is the deal. A history professor from an eastern college e mailed me a pleasant gentlelady email request re use ONE of my gallery online photos taken in the 1950s of the Boston Common for a wall display her students are doing as a school project. I guess she will have her

students wmake a few 8 X10's showing how the Commons was used as a soapbox venue for various religious activists over the centuries by preachers and philosophers. I wrote her back affirmatively saying 'sure, no charge, but so sorry I don't do them TIFFs anymore.

 

And then realize that folks DO ASK for TIFFS

 

 

Prompting me to do some research including this post.

Sounds- correct me please- like one of the early 90s lossless formats that was

designed especially for book publication, right?

 

I offered her a good size but not too big JPEG which would fit my

bill for a 8X10. Original is a teeny 24X23 half frame type slide in Kodachrome...a little dusty to do over.... So ladies and gents, kindly educate me if you will on the use of/ and guidance on ' what is the big deal these days about TIFF files". has it been overtaken?....in the publishing world and by what.......for high quality e mailing especially?

 

 

Thanks in advance.

Is TIFF kind of passe´ I was thinking. Am I getting close?

[michael_darnton2]

<p>In a world where the editor of a world-wide-distributed publication can request a file from me noting that they only take them at 300dpi ("What dimension?" I ask; "300 dpi." they respond), any level of ignorance based on imaginary, not real, qualities is possible on the part of people making picture requests. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I really don't understand why you won't send a TIFF - all the files that I use to make big prints are TIFFs, which as far as I am concerned is a universal lossless format that everyone can read. The only times I make JPEGS are firstly small files for on-line display and secondly larger files which someone needs as an e-mail attachment because they haven't got FTP facilities and I need to keep the file size under 10 MB. Obviously if you have all your files stored as JPEGs, storing one as a TIFF won't make it better but it will save it from data loss during subsequent processing.<br>

The request for "300 dpi" is of course annoying - but everyone knows they mean 300 <strong>P</strong>pi at A4 size, so I just send them that and don't waste my energy explaining that "dpi" is a function of the printer, not the file, and that every file can be 300 ppi if you size it accordingly.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>TIFF isn't passé for many uses. Asking for a TIFF image is not necessarily displaying a level of ignorance nor based on something imaginary. TIFF is still the best file format for any situation where compatibility between different systems matter (=nearly always; as David said: <em>a universal lossless format that everyone can read</em>) and where filesize is completely of secondary importance. JPEG is only the best file format is file size is very important (for emailing, it might be, though dropbox/onedrive/google drive solves that easily), and when it is clear the file is a final product.<br>

JPEG has a lossy compression and max. 8 bits per colour channel, and always only RGB channels. TIFF on the other hand can have more colour channels (including alpha channels for masks, and/or CMYK colour channels prefered for DTP work), 16 bits colour per channel, no compression or lossless compression. So it's a lot more versatile and it retains full quality of the pixels in it, but files are large®.</p>

<p>In fact, ideally it is JPEG that is only used when there is no other option - it is the lesser of the two file formats. So far, any attempt to standardise a file format that combines the best of both worlds (JPEG 2000, PNG) seems to not solve all issues. So for now, JPEG and TIFF are both much needed file formats.</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>TIFF is the standard surely ? I haven't heard of anything else being introduced.<br>

Perhaps it wasn't needed in this case, but I'm unaware of it having gone away.<br>

Usually my photos go RAW to TIFF, but as I often have the camera doing raw and jpg, sometimes they go straight from jpg to internet. And I do sometimes use the phone camera that only does jpg.<br>

I use jpgs for email and web, and jpg or png for textures. That all essentially means internet use, where small size reduces the load and improves performance, and where loss of quality is acceptable.<br>

Scanning is also always to TIFF, although nowadays I sometimes use the camera rather than the scanner.<br>

Printing is usually from TIFF if it's available.<br>

I didn't think this was unusual.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>I can't comment on this professor or her use(s) specifically, but several thoguths:</p>

<p><em>In a world where the editor of a world-wide-distributed publication can request a file from me noting that they only take them at 300dpi ("What dimension?" I ask; "300 dpi." they respond), any level of ignorance based on imaginary, not real, qualities is possible on the part of people making picture requests.</em><br>

+1. I have encountered this exact issue with more than one so-called professional. Ignorance and arbitrary (and incomplete!) requirements abound.</p>

<p><em>[A]ll the files that I use to make big prints are TIFFs ....</em><br>

Except for rare cases where (1) the final image has extremely high dynamic range, (2) you send a 16-bit-per-channel TIFF, and (3) the printer actually does something with those extra bits, I'd bet heavily that none of us can reliably distinguish (i.e., in a double-blind test) prints made from TIFFs from prints made from low-compression JPEGs.</p>

<p><em>The request for "300 dpi" is of course annoying - but everyone knows they mean 300 <strong>P</strong>pi at A4 size ....</em><br>

A4? Says who? Certainly not in the U.S., and probably not many other places. Publications come in a variety of sizes, and the picture's use can be foldout, double-page, single-page, or part of a page. And of course prints come in a bewildering variety of sizes.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, FWIW, I never give out my raw files, but do supply 16-bit TIFFs and/or JPEGs. IMOPO, for most <em>photographic printing</em> purposes, an 8-bit TIFF provides virtually no advantage over a best-quality JPEG, by which I mean 4:4:4 subsampling and minimum compression, and which produces files with about 2.5:1 compression relative to an 8-bit TIFF. Now if you need CMYK or some such, that may be a different animal.</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

Well thanks all. I have learned something I think. That the TIFF file still has advantages and indeed superiority for those who need its advantages or quality and can handle the megabytes of storage if I got it right. Guess I have gotten so used to JPEG I had forgotten other save formats or my eyes have learned to accept less and less data over time.( we fill in blanks with our brains I think) I don't think have used the PS PSD either for a long time. Now, question for e mail, let's say I should I reshoot the slide and save to TIFF, can I presume that party at other end can open the file for sure?.

JPEG everybody can open at least all my correspondents and Facebook and so on.

 

I asked, because I don't have a handle on all that is out there and more to the point what is customary.- so this is a useful part of my education in the digital world we 'tribal elders' now inhabit :-). Value of PN to me.

And maybe too it is a little survey of what is common use and let's say feasible/practical for size limits as well as for highest repro quality.

 

I read yesterday that Adobe has ownership of TIFF format and is still working on it's features. So not out of fashion at all. Great. Oh, as I noted, my requestor's output will be a moderate size A4 more or less color print .

[craig_shearman1]

<p>My experience both as a photographer and sometimes-photo editor is that jpg is the standard file for publication. I shoot everything in raw, edit in raw and save final output in raw, then use jpg to send to clients or to the lab to be printed. Clients and labs get a high resolution jpg is what goes to clients. That's whatever resolution the camera can provide, but a minimum of 300 ppi at 8x10. I never downsize the resolution, although I will compress as low as 8 on the 1-12 compression scale in Photoshop, when emailing a file. I've provided photos for newspapers, magazines and books around the world and never had anyone even ask for anything other than a jpg.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I create all my finished "master" images as 16-bit TIFF files in the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto color space. Everything I've read suggests that the TIFF format provides the best archival characteristics. I deliver licensed image files as "12"-quality sRGB JPEG files, as an e-mail attachment or a download. Nobody has requested TIFF files or other formats.</p>

<p>I recently had some prints made by Aspen Creek, the "amateur" division of West Coast Imaging. They accept only JPEG files, but their workflow is fully color-managed and accepts any standard color space. I was concerned about using ProPhoto with 8-bit JPEG, as well as with the degradation in image quality from JPEG compression. When I called them, they said that ProPhoto would be no problem, and that any loss of image data in a "12"-quality JPEG file should be invisible in a print. I was very happy with the prints.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Question: What is the difference between TIFF and JPEG that has 0 compression set?</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>What is the difference between TIFF and JPEG that has 0 compression set?</em></p>

<p>TIFFs can just as commonly / readily be 16 bits-per-channel as 8 bits. JPEGs are (almost?) always 8 bits-per-channel. If the original source really has the extra information (raw files from relatively common digital cameras actually contain anywhere from 10 to 16 bits per channel) <em>and</em> the recipient makes substantial changes to the contrast and/or color, those extra bits can provide a real improvement (e.g., resistance to banding).</p>

<p>That said, the other big question is compression and image detail losses compression can cause. TIFFs are most commonly uncompressed, and JPEGs are always compressed, usually in a way that loses some image detail ("lossy" compression). But TIFFs can be compressed, and I <em>think</em> that <em>some</em> of the <em>optional</em> compression types are lossy. Conversely, I suspect (I have neither researched nor tested it) that JPEGs with the least compression and highest subsampling are either lossless or virtually lossless.</p>

 

[tom_mann1]

<p>If anyone thinks there is any significant difference between an original 8 bpc RGB image and a version of that image that has been turned into a quality = 12 JPG in PS, the answer is simple: Please just perform the experiment for yourself with one of your own images. </p>

<p>Put each version of your image on a separate layer in PS, and set the layer blending mode of the upper layer to either "difference" or "subtract". The result will perfectly black indicating no difference between the two. </p>

<p>If you want to look for even miniscule differences between the two versions, put a "levels" adjustment layer above the pair, and slide the RH slider (directly under the histogram) almost all the way to the left, thereby magnifying any tiny differences that might be present. To convince yourself that this comparison technique actually does work, repeat the comparison with a quality level 7 (or below) JPG, and you will see lots of differences.</p>

<p>There have been several threads on this comparison technique in photo.net in past years showing the above results, but I don't have the time at the moment to find them and provide a link.</p>

<p>IMHO, the most important difference between the two file formats is the effect of bit rot over time. A single bit flipped somewhere in a JPG file almost always mucks up the remainder of the image after that point, and may even make the file difficult, if not impossible to open by conventional SW. </p>

<p>In contrast, a single bit flip in an uncompressed TIF only impacts one of the three color channels in one pixel, nothing else. Such a small flaw in the image can either be ignored, or, if desired, can be easily repaired based on the content of the surrounding pixels.</p>

<p>Put differently, the probability for a JPG to get significantly mucked up is hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times greater than that of an uncompressed TIF. It is the ratio of one bit, to roughly the overall size of the file in bits. This loss of robustness is so severe, that as I recall, the US Archives put out a position paper strongly suggesting archiving important images in uncompressed TIF or an archivally equivalent file format.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>TomM</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Tiffs are not outdated , are a std image format and haven't really been supplanted by anything else. Personally though I would want to have information on exactly what they plan to do with it before I sent a Tiff, and write a licence specific to those purposes. Reason is that in general you're giving more information, so with greater usage flexibility, with a Tiff than with a jpeg. I do understand that some Tiffs can be compressed and that 12 quality jpegs are difficult to distinguish, but in general terms Tiffs are bigger than jpegs and they may have a reason for asking for this. </p>