Tiff or Jpg when saving to print?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Donna Swisher, Jul 13, 2003.

  1. Hi, when I access my digital photos to print they have been downloaded from
    my camera in jpg format, I only usually take them to the edit program to add
    the date, then should I (save as ) in jpg or tiff to print. I want the
    highest quality possible.

    --
    Mark & Donna/Indiana
    Carl 21
    Hayden (LKS), Robert(PDD-NOS),Trevor(NT) 5 (Triplets)
    Baby Sister-Madison(NT) 18 months, New Years Day Baby
    Hayden's Story http://www.kidsepilepsy.com/onekid.asp?id=1464
    "The mother of a disabled child will never take for granted a "spoken word".
    She will never consider a "step" ordinary. When her child says "momma" for
    the first time,
    she will be present at a miracle and know it" Erma Bombeck
    AUTISM
    Ten years ago one in 10,000
    Five years ago one in 500
    Today one in 150
    SCARED YET?
    http://www.momsonamissionforautism.org/
    Scrapbook Album
    http://www.eseephoto.com/view_album.php?albumid=87420715072fb3f6c55
    Donna Swisher, Jul 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donna Swisher

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Donna Swisher wrote:

    > Hi, when I access my digital photos to print they have been downloaded from
    > my camera in jpg format, I only usually take them to the edit program to add
    > the date, then should I (save as ) in jpg or tiff to print. I want the
    > highest quality possible.
    >


    Save again as TIFF.

    When a JPEG image is opened, it gets read from disk then uncompressed and
    loaded into RAM by your imaging software. When you save it, it gets
    compressed again and saved back your disk. JPEG compression is lossy. Each
    time you do an open and save, you are losing quality.

    If you only do one 'open and save', and, keep the compression low, I doubt
    you'd be able to see any noticeable degredation in quality. Two or more times
    and JPEG artifacts will probably start to become obvious.

    If the qualty is mission critical.. Save as TIFF.
    Jim Townsend, Jul 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Donna Swisher

    james Guest

    I would agree about converting to Tiff. But, one mistake everyone seems to
    make is that each time you open a JPEG file and then close it, that it
    somehow looses quality.
    The only time that happens is if you EDIT or make any kind of changes to the
    original image. And then save it back to the original filename. That's when
    the degredation occurs. Opening and just closing (without editing) doesn't
    change anything.
    Think about it, if that were the case, jpg's used on websites would
    degrade and look horrible in no time at all if just opening and closing
    could cause that sort of problem.
    Most image editing software Opens the image file, copies it to a temporary
    buffer and all editing takes place on the in-memory copy of the image, not
    the original image.
    I have written a small image editing program in VB.NET and have opened and
    closed some of my test jpg images hundreds of times during testing. And
    there has been no loose of detail or artifically introduced artifacts in the
    images that were just opened and closed. It will only occur when the image
    is edited and saved back to the original filename.
    james

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Save again as TIFF.

    >
    > When a JPEG image is opened, it gets read from disk then uncompressed and
    > loaded into RAM by your imaging software. When you save it, it gets
    > compressed again and saved back your disk. JPEG compression is lossy.

    Each
    > time you do an open and save, you are losing quality.
    >
    > If you only do one 'open and save', and, keep the compression low, I doubt
    > you'd be able to see any noticeable degredation in quality. Two or more

    times
    > and JPEG artifacts will probably start to become obvious.
    >
    > If the qualty is mission critical.. Save as TIFF.


    >
    >
    >
    james, Jul 13, 2003
    #3
  4. Donna Swisher

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <b44Qa.3550$D%>,
    says...
    > Hi, when I access my digital photos to print they have been downloaded from
    > my camera in jpg format, I only usually take them to the edit program to add
    > the date, then should I (save as ) in jpg or tiff to print. I want the
    > highest quality possible.
    >


    For highest quality, save as TIFF. This will keep you from introducing
    another generation of JPG compression to the picture.

    You may also want to consider reducing the size of your sig. A sig that
    is 16 lines long is considered bad netiquette...

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Olympus E20
    Canon G2
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Jul 13, 2003
    #4
  5. Todd Walker <> wrote:

    > says...
    >
    > > Hi, when I access my digital photos to print they have been downloaded from
    > > my camera in jpg format, I only usually take them to the edit program to add
    > > the date, then should I (save as ) in jpg or tiff to print. I want the
    > > highest quality possible.
    > >

    >
    > For highest quality, save as TIFF. This will keep you from introducing
    > another generation of JPG compression to the picture.
    >
    > You may also want to consider reducing the size of your sig. A sig that
    > is 16 lines long is considered bad netiquette...


    Todd, your sig is also overlong by standard netiquette. four lines is
    considered the acceptable limit.

    personally, i couldn't care less about anyone's sig length. it's just
    that i once read this thingie somewhere about attending to the beam in
    thine own eye before remarking upon the mote in thy neighbor's...
    The Queen of Cans and Jars, Jul 13, 2003
    #5
  6. Donna Swisher

    Travis Guest

    Donna Swisher wrote:
    > Hi, when I access my digital photos to print they have been
    > downloaded from my camera in jpg format, I only usually take
    > them to the edit program to add the date, then should I (save
    > as ) in jpg or tiff to print. I want the highest quality
    > possible.


    If you want the highest quality possible you should take the
    pictures in .tif format.

    --
    Travis in Shoreline Washington
    Uses a Kodak DC4800
    Travis, Jul 13, 2003
    #6
  7. Donna Swisher

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <1fy090y.baiilt1p1k0qyN%>,
    says...
    > Todd, your sig is also overlong by standard netiquette. four lines is
    > considered the acceptable limit.


    Oh really? And where would one go to find the exact number of lines that
    is acceptable in a Usenet sig?

    > personally, i couldn't care less about anyone's sig length. it's just
    > that i once read this thingie somewhere about attending to the beam in
    > thine own eye before remarking upon the mote in thy neighbor's...


    Yeah, my sig is just as annoying as her's. Whatever.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Olympus E20
    Canon G2
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Jul 13, 2003
    #7
  8. Todd Walker <> wrote:
    >> Todd, your sig is also overlong by standard netiquette. four lines is
    >> considered the acceptable limit.

    >Oh really? And where would one go to find the exact number of lines that
    >is acceptable in a Usenet sig?


    It's 4. Just as columns should be less than 80 wide.

    Easy enough to look up, esp before making fun of others for the same.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
    Jason O'Rourke, Jul 13, 2003
    #8
  9. Donna Swisher

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    If space is a problem, you can print directly from the open edited image (it is
    a temporary space) and then not save it.
    This will maintain your original.
    If you cannot print directly, then save it in Tiff or whatever format you
    editing program uses (PSD, for Photoshop or Elements, etc.).
    Rosita
    HRosita, Jul 13, 2003
    #9
  10. Thanks for all the advice, my camera is a basic Olympus 2.0 mp, and I
    believe it only takes pics in jpg. The reason I put the date on the photos,
    is 99% of them are of our children. And 20 odd years from now, I will never
    remember when they were taken. I also save these photos to disc as a
    negative. I have just a very few photos of myself as a child and really hate
    that my parents didn't take more, so I take tons of photos. So from what I
    understand once I add the date, I should save as in TIFF. and that image is
    the one I want to burn to cd correct? Because I also scrapbook and will want
    to go back at a later date and print more of the same picture.

    I must say I'm sorry about the signature line being to long. I usually edit
    it before posting on the newsgroups. We have triplets and 2 of them are
    special needs, so most of my posting on the internet are in those types of
    forums and we let others know our background with our kids that way.



    --
    Donna/Indiana
    Donna Swisher, Jul 13, 2003
    #10
  11. james wrote:

    > I would agree about converting to Tiff. But, one mistake everyone
    > seems to make is that each time you open a JPEG file and then
    > close it, that it somehow looses quality.


    Jim didn't write "open and close". He wrote "open and save".

    If you by "open and close" mean "open and save without editing", then
    you are partly correct (although this doesn't explain your comment on
    webbrowsers). The JPEG FAQ covers this:
    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/section-10.html

    The point is that you have to use the same quality setting (which also
    translates to using the same compression engine or one that is very
    similar) when saving to avoid the degradation.

    If Donna is lucky enough to hit that combination with her favorite
    image editor, then it will work as you described. Since adding a date
    is a local operation, only the area around the text will degrade. But I
    wouldn't count on it.
    --
    Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
    Toke Eskildsen, Jul 13, 2003
    #11
  12. Donna Swisher wrote:

    > The reason I put the date
    > on the photos, is 99% of them are of our children. And 20 odd
    > years from now, I will never remember when they were taken.


    Some print services in Denmark prints the date from the EXIF data on
    the back of the paper. Maybe you can find a similar service in your
    area?

    > So from what I understand once I add the date, I should save as in
    > TIFF. and that image is the one I want to burn to cd correct?


    Do yourself a favor and burn the original JPEGs too. They don't take
    much space compared to the TIFFs and my guess is that you'll regret the
    data-adding in a few years from now.

    And of course, remember that a single instance of data isn't a backup,
    it's just lost data that doesn't know it yet. Burn a copy of your CDs
    or store a local copy on your harddisk.

    (sorry if the last part was obvious to you)
    --
    Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
    Toke Eskildsen, Jul 13, 2003
    #12
  13. Donna Swisher

    james Guest

    Inline:
    "Toke Eskildsen" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93B79F297250tokeeskildsen@130.133.1.4...
    > james wrote:
    >
    > > I would agree about converting to Tiff. But, one mistake everyone
    > > seems to make is that each time you open a JPEG file and then
    > > close it, that it somehow looses quality.

    >
    > Jim didn't write "open and close". He wrote "open and save".

    You are correct, I missed the Open and Save. My apologies. I just continue
    to see posts about jpg images loosing quality and usually it is stated in
    such a way as to make it appear that this happens when the image is simply
    Opened and Closed.
    Which is not the case. Otherwise, jpg would not be used on the web or
    anywhere else.

    > If you by "open and close" mean "open and save without editing", then
    > you are partly correct (although this doesn't explain your comment on
    > webbrowsers). The JPEG FAQ covers this:
    > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/section-10.html


    Good link and explaination. But, my comment about web browsers is that
    whenever you Download a JPEG image from a website, your browser OPENS it and
    once you navagate away it is closed again. But, as far as the server is
    concerned, the file
    (jpg image) is accessed just as if you had that image on your local machine.
    Therefore, the actual file is Opened and Closed, sometimes hundreds of times
    a day.
    And the image doesn't loose quality.
    My feelings are that sometimes people might interpet statements about jpg
    files as that they cannot even view their images in jpg format without
    causing degredation of their images, which is not true.
    As per the JPEG FAQ that you posted the link to, the only time degredation
    occurs is when the image is manupulated in some form or fashion.
    In the case of the original poster, adding dates etc. then yes, there would
    be a loose in data and the quality of the image. Unless, she saved the
    changed image to a different filename. Then the original image would not
    loose anything.

    > The point is that you have to use the same quality setting (which also
    > translates to using the same compression engine or one that is very
    > similar) when saving to avoid the degradation.
    >
    > If Donna is lucky enough to hit that combination with her favorite
    > image editor, then it will work as you described. Since adding a date
    > is a local operation, only the area around the text will degrade. But I
    > wouldn't count on it.
    > --
    > Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
    james, Jul 13, 2003
    #13
  14. Todd Walker <> wrote:

    > says...
    >
    > > Todd, your sig is also overlong by standard netiquette. four lines is
    > > considered the acceptable limit.

    >
    > Oh really? And where would one go to find the exact number of lines that
    > is acceptable in a Usenet sig?


    it's common knowledge.

    > > personally, i couldn't care less about anyone's sig length. it's just
    > > that i once read this thingie somewhere about attending to the beam in
    > > thine own eye before remarking upon the mote in thy neighbor's...

    >
    > Yeah, my sig is just as annoying as her's. Whatever.


    so, it's ok for you to point things out to people, but not ok for people
    to point the same things out to you?
    The Queen of Cans and Jars, Jul 13, 2003
    #14
  15. Donna Swisher

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <Xns93B79F297250tokeeskildsen@130.133.1.4>,
    says...
    > The point is that you have to use the same quality setting (which also
    > translates to using the same compression engine or one that is very
    > similar) when saving to avoid the degradation.
    >


    That is incorrect. Even if you use the same quality setting, you are
    still introducing more compression into the picture. The JPG scheme
    isn't smart enough to say "Oh, this has been saved at this compression
    level before so I won't compress it again." It is treated just like any
    other picture and re-compressed.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Olympus E20
    Canon G2
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Jul 13, 2003
    #15
  16. Donna Swisher

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <u%bQa.4236$Y%>,
    says...
    > I must say I'm sorry about the signature line being to long. I usually edit
    > it before posting on the newsgroups. We have triplets and 2 of them are
    > special needs, so most of my posting on the internet are in those types of
    > forums and we let others know our background with our kids that way.
    >


    Understood Donna. Sorry for jumping on you :)

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Olympus E20
    Canon G2
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Jul 13, 2003
    #16
  17. Todd Walker wrote:

    [Snip Toke: Resaving JPEG without editing at the save q-setting]

    > That is incorrect. Even if you use the same quality setting, you
    > are still introducing more compression into the picture.


    Have you tried for yourself? I have. Take a look at
    http://ekot.dk/foto/recompress/nochange.html

    It's of mostly theoretical value, because why would anyone want to do
    it in everyday work?

    > The JPG scheme isn't smart enough to say "Oh, this has been saved at
    > this compression level before so I won't compress it again."


    It doesn't have to do so explicitly. The compressor just makes the same
    roundings af before.
    --
    Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
    Toke Eskildsen, Jul 13, 2003
    #17
  18. Donna Swisher

    Ender Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:52:53 GMT, "james" <>
    wrote:

    >Inline:
    >"Toke Eskildsen" <> wrote in message
    >news:Xns93B79F297250tokeeskildsen@130.133.1.4...
    >> james wrote:
    >>
    >> > I would agree about converting to Tiff. But, one mistake everyone
    >> > seems to make is that each time you open a JPEG file and then
    >> > close it, that it somehow looses quality.

    >>
    >> Jim didn't write "open and close". He wrote "open and save".

    >You are correct, I missed the Open and Save. My apologies. I just continue
    >to see posts about jpg images loosing quality and usually it is stated in
    >such a way as to make it appear that this happens when the image is simply
    >Opened and Closed.
    >Which is not the case. Otherwise, jpg would not be used on the web or
    >anywhere else.
    >
    >> If you by "open and close" mean "open and save without editing", then
    >> you are partly correct (although this doesn't explain your comment on
    >> webbrowsers). The JPEG FAQ covers this:
    >> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/section-10.html

    >
    >Good link and explaination. But, my comment about web browsers is that
    >whenever you Download a JPEG image from a website, your browser OPENS it and
    >once you navagate away it is closed again. But, as far as the server is
    >concerned, the file
    >(jpg image) is accessed just as if you had that image on your local machine.
    >Therefore, the actual file is Opened and Closed, sometimes hundreds of times
    >a day.
    >And the image doesn't loose quality.


    This is not really true. A copy of the .jpg is sent to your machine
    and opened and closed, not the original. If it was otherwise, only one
    person could access it at a time. The .jpg is never opened on the
    server.



    >My feelings are that sometimes people might interpet statements about jpg
    >files as that they cannot even view their images in jpg format without
    >causing degredation of their images, which is not true.
    >As per the JPEG FAQ that you posted the link to, the only time degredation
    >occurs is when the image is manupulated in some form or fashion.
    >In the case of the original poster, adding dates etc. then yes, there would
    >be a loose in data and the quality of the image. Unless, she saved the
    >changed image to a different filename. Then the original image would not
    >loose anything.
    >
    >> The point is that you have to use the same quality setting (which also
    >> translates to using the same compression engine or one that is very
    >> similar) when saving to avoid the degradation.
    >>
    >> If Donna is lucky enough to hit that combination with her favorite
    >> image editor, then it will work as you described. Since adding a date
    >> is a local operation, only the area around the text will degrade. But I
    >> wouldn't count on it.
    >> --
    >> Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/

    >
    >
    >
    Ender, Jul 13, 2003
    #18
  19. Donna Swisher

    Matti Vuori Guest

    Ender <> wrote in
    news::
    >
    > This is not really true. A copy of the .jpg is sent to your machine
    > and opened and closed, not the original. If it was otherwise, only one
    > person could access it at a time.


    Why not?

    > The .jpg is never opened on the server.


    It makes no difference whatsover, weather it is "opened", "copied" or
    whatever -- it is still "read" in all cased, and simultaneously for that
    matter, for many clients of the web server.

    --
    Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
    Matti Vuori, Jul 13, 2003
    #19
    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. Sb083459

    Preserving captions when saving TIFF to JPG in PS7

    Sb083459, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    364
    Annika1980
    Dec 27, 2003
  2. ARosenblat

    jpeg to tiff and back to tiff

    ARosenblat, Dec 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    765
    Fuzzy Logic
    Jan 9, 2004
  3. Peter Frank
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,039
    Chris Cox
    Dec 13, 2004
  4. Jenna Topping

    BMP to TIFF or TIFF to BMP- any loss?

    Jenna Topping, Jan 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    680
    None40
    Jan 23, 2005
  5. Caien

    JPG->TIFF->JPG

    Caien, Mar 21, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,753
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 24, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page