Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Perk, Nov 3, 2005.

  1. Perk

    Perk Guest

    Hi all, need some opinions,

    My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
    doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
    Quality), and HQ.

    Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk space
    and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one another in size.

    Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
    advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
    picture quality ?

    Thanks much,

    Perk :)>)
    Perk, Nov 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Perk wrote:
    > Hi all, need some opinions,
    >
    > My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
    > doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
    > Quality), and HQ.
    >
    > Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk
    > space and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one
    > another in size.
    > Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
    > advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
    > picture quality ?


    There are differences and they relate to file size. The larger the file
    the more information that is stored. I suggest that if you intend to edit
    the files that you stick with TIFF at least until after you edit them.

    If you are not planning on editing them, then I suggest that you
    consider testing and seeing for yourself how they hold up for the use you
    intend for them. If it is your intention to display them on a computer
    screen do that if you want to make prints, do that. Now take a good look
    and see if you see a difference, if not go with the smaller size as there is
    no advantage to YOU. I might see it different, but they are not my prints.

    >
    > Thanks much,
    >
    > Perk :)>)


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Perk

    Malcolm Guest

    > My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
    > doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
    > Quality), and HQ.
    >
    > Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk space
    > and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one another in size.
    >
    > Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
    > advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
    > picture quality ?


    This is the way I did it:
    http://tinyurl.com/c2et8

    The best quality jpg will be fine. There is very little difference between
    this and a tiff.

    However, before doing any editing, mark the jpg as read only. Then edit and
    save as a different name. If you ever need to edit again, go back to the
    original read only file and edit that.

    Malcolm
    Malcolm, Nov 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Perk

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:59:16 +0200, Malcolm wrote:

    > However, before doing any editing, mark the jpg as read only. Then edit
    > and save as a different name. If you ever need to edit again, go back to the
    > original read only file and edit that.


    That'll work, and it's much safer than working with the original
    files. When I do that with non-image files I always make sure that
    I save a renamed copy *before* starting any edits. If an accident
    happens before the name is changed (accidentally typing <Control>-S
    or not realizing the program has a timed auto-save feature), there
    goes the original file. But for photo images I find it safer to
    never edit the original files. They're kept in a known, easily
    found location, and only copies (usually on another drive) are
    edited. This way if I ever need to go back to the original, I know
    exactly what the name of the file is, since it's the same as the
    edited copy. Even if for some reason it's desirable to change the
    filename, it's probably a good idea to have the new filename contain
    an embedded copy of the original filename.
    ASAAR, Nov 3, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Johnson

    Digicam negatives? (wasRe: Digitizing film negatives)

    Mark Johnson, Apr 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    433
    Mark Johnson
    Apr 2, 2004
  2. RH Horn
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    11,950
    Tom Monego
    May 7, 2004
  3. Chris
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
    andre
    Sep 25, 2004
  4. MB
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,365
    tomm42
    Jan 15, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    752
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page