# jpeg vs. psd. vs tiff files?



## GeneGro (Oct 19, 2005)

Hello all, 
recently took pictures of a friend's daughter. Questions are, what type of file to save. Will probably photoshop some of them myself, but plan on giving her a CD of images so she can take them to have printed. Should I just burn the CD without working them to give to her? Some images were taken in RAW and JPEG mode.


----------



## slipe (Jun 27, 2000)

I doubt you would want to leave the raw images in raw format for processing. Flatten the image after any post processing and use TIFF or JPG as any processor will have no problems with those.

You will not see any difference between quality 12 JPGs from Photoshop and TIFF. Maybe after multiple saves, but that doesn&#8217;t apply here. But the smaller size might give more options. For one thing you could probably fit all of the original images converted to best quality JPG and also include images that are cropped or enhanced. 

If the camera is 4:3 and the friend is a newbie it might be good to include a full set cropped to 4 X 6.

If there are only a few photos use TIFF, but best quality JPGs are better than a lot of people realize.


----------



## blaqDeaph (Nov 22, 2005)

For most intents and purpose, theres no visible quality loss above the '8' quality setting in the JPEG. You only notice the difference if you zoom up real close, and maybe even then, not at all. But after multiple saves, you might. TIFF files are really only useful if you want 0 image quality loss, but personally, I've only used that for publication quality works. Even for publications, most of the time a quality 10 JPEG looks the same, especially if the image is smaller.


----------



## erick295 (Mar 27, 2005)

I would just leave them in a JPEG format - uncompressed TIFF would be excessive for what you're trying to do, and since the camera has saved them as JPEG's, the compression artifacts are already there. She will likely not be able to use the RAW files - I would process those and save them as JPEG's.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Jpeg Period


----------



## blaqDeaph (Nov 22, 2005)

erick295 said:


> I would just leave them in a JPEG format - uncompressed TIFF would be excessive for what you're trying to do, and since the camera has saved them as JPEG's, the compression artifacts are already there. She will likely not be able to use the RAW files - I would process those and save them as JPEG's.


Why wouldnt you compress the TIFF files?


----------



## slipe (Jun 27, 2000)

blaqDeaph said:


> Why wouldnt you compress the TIFF files?


LZW and ZIP compressions aren't as universal as standard TIFF. And they are still well over twice the size of a quality 12 JPG.

I have no idea what JPG compression offered by Photoshop for TIFF format is. I read an Adobe technical paper on it and still don't understand why you would want a JPG with a TIFF extension. They come out about the same size and offer the same compression options.


----------



## erick295 (Mar 27, 2005)

blaqDeaph said:


> Why wouldnt you compress the TIFF files?


ZIP compression has spotty support, and JPEG compression is pointless when you can just save it as a JPEG instead. When I use the TIFF format, it's because I don't want a compressed image. If I need something to be smaller for some reason, I either save it as a JPEG or put it in a ZIP file


----------



## denbigh (Feb 11, 2005)

JPEG should/would always be the format of choice for a finished picture. I would agree with 8 upwards, depending on print size.

(same applies for sharpening in my book - applied only to the finished picture, and never in camera or before final jpeg save).

Any other format then, is for unfinished pictures, and should be as lossless as is available on your platform. Taking loads of pictures and saving in raw means dvd's and good management, using metadata from the word go.


----------



## slipe (Jun 27, 2000)

> JPEG should/would always be the format of choice for a finished picture. I would agree with 8 upwards, depending on print size.


I don't see the logic in that. Once you alter a picture it should be saved in a loseless format unless you have space constraints. If the altered image has layers it should normally be saved in the image editor's proprietary format to save the layers as that is usually more efficient than TIFF with layers. JPG should not be an intermediate step between post processing and printing unless one is using a printing program that accepts only JPG. And in that case only the highest JPG quality would be used.



> Any other format then, is for unfinished pictures, and should be as lossless as is available on your platform. Taking loads of pictures and saving in raw means dvd's and good management, using metadata from the word go.


There aren't different degrees of loseless. Loseless formats are available on all platforms.


----------



## blaqDeaph (Nov 22, 2005)

denbigh said:


> JPEG should/would always be the format of choice for a finished picture. I would agree with 8 upwards, depending on print size.
> 
> (same applies for sharpening in my book - applied only to the finished picture, and never in camera or before final jpeg save).
> 
> Any other format then, is for unfinished pictures, and should be as lossless as is available on your platform. Taking loads of pictures and saving in raw means dvd's and good management, using metadata from the word go.


*shudders* Anyone whos done anything in the image world knows that you only get in trouble using JPGs for anything other than previews or where space is *really* a concern. Lossless compression should always be the way to go, even for finished products (and especially for unfinished/working projects.

And Lossless by definition means that no quality is loss, so theres no such thing as "as lossless as possible"


----------



## erick295 (Mar 27, 2005)

If the photo is already a JPEG, why would you save it as anything else?


----------



## denbigh (Feb 11, 2005)

slipe said:


> I dont see the logic in that. Once you alter a picture it should be saved in a loseless format unless you have space constraints. If the altered image has layers it should normally be saved in the image editors proprietary format to save the layers as that is usually more efficient than TIFF with layers. JPG should not be an intermediate step between post processing and printing unless one is using a printing program that accepts only JPG. And in that case only the highest JPG quality would be used.


If you re-read my posting, I referred to when the picture is *finished*, ie for production and will *never* be edited again, and will possibly be passed on for printing. Try sending layered images to a typesetter!! I think what addresses your comment is that the true raw original should always be available, plus any layers and all metadata.



> There arent different degrees of loseless. Loseless formats are available on all platforms.


Yes, my wording was unfortunate. Lossless is lossless, can't think what was at the back of my mind at that moment:down:


----------

