JPG vs TIFF Resolution Test

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jerry McG, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. HPI has Durst and Lightjet services, I've never used them and don't know
    their prices.
    I'm not sure if I follow what you did there, but the only way to create a
    16-bit TIF is directly from a RAW file. If you try to save a JPEG as
    a16-bitTIF you've already lost the millions of unique colors present in the
    RAW file when the JPEG was compressed. A typical DSLR JPEG might contain a
    few 100K unique colors, choosen from a 17 million color palette, left over
    from the millions orginally captured using a 68 billion color palette. So
    if I understand you correctly the anwser is no, you can't go from JPEG to
    TIF and expect better results than the starting JPEG.
    Places like Walgreens can print 24-bit with reasonable results, but so can
    modern home inkjets. For the best photographs (not prints, technically,
    these are developed emulsions) possible, usually called museum quality which
    will be night and day from the previous, match an original 16-bit TIF with a
    true 36-bit pro printing service. Most agree that Lightjet photographs are
    one of the best if not the best photos by a wide margin from digital files.
    You can go a lot bigger than you might think too, if the photo is good and
    sharp with min artifacts, because the Lightjet has an optional mode that
    will "de-jag" an image on the fly.
    George Preddy, Dec 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jerry McG

    Ray Murphy Guest

    RM: This of course is absolutely correct, but all the misinformation
    floating around makes me wonder how much longer we are going to argue
    about so many basic things connected to digital photography.

    Perhaps eventually we'll reach a stage where we can operate with
    indisputable facts and begin talking about precisely the same thing
    instead of changing the subject constantly.

    I know that nearly everything would be written in books or websites,
    but it sounds like we need a concise list of the (simpler) facts so
    that there is no need for all this nonsense.

    Ray Murphy, Dec 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. We're talking about editing JPEG, if you edit a JPEG it gets even more
    degraded than the first iteration. If you abandon the JPEG format, there
    was no reason not to shoot RAW or TIF in the firstplace, now you've got a
    lossy TIF, you are suggesting the the worst of all worlds.
    George Preddy, Dec 7, 2003
  4. Jerry McG

    Patrick L. Guest

    Then I must be doing something less strenuous.

    My Oly E-10 lens shoots razor sharp images, (without in camera sharpening)
    so no post processing sharpening is necessary. I do a small curves
    adjustment, if the shot is underexposed, and about 25% are, and a slight
    saturation adjustment. Neither produce noticeable artifacts to the naked
    eye at when printing up to 11x14. I use a lab for printing, since my little
    very old inkjet is not up to a professional standard. If I shoot in low
    lighting without flash, which is the case in churches that do not allow
    flash during the ceremony, which requires considerable post processing
    adjustments, then I shoot at 1:27. I would shoot raw, if I had a proper
    plugin for PhotoShop for raw conversion, and for batch processing, and my
    Oly didn't take so long to write to the card at RAW, as well has having
    considerably more CF memory (I have a little over one gigabyte). So lower
    than 1:2.7 is not an option for me for shooting weddings with my E-10.

    Patrick L., Dec 7, 2003
  5. George Preddy, Dec 7, 2003
  6. Jerry McG

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Most of the people here can do that. Our friend George Preddy, however,
    tries to keep logic at bay with mad hatter statements. He isn't even
    *trying* to talk about the same thing as other people, at this point.
    He pulls out keywords and looks for ways to twist what you wrote into
    something else.

    Someone said that you can prevent further deterioration of a JPG after
    the initial capture, by working on it in 16-bit, and saving as a TIF.
    His reply was, "that is not a JPG". Arguing with such a person is
    nothing more than an exercise; he will never concede error on his part,
    and he will always see people as ignorant and needing to be taught, no
    matter how much less he knows than them.
    JPS, Dec 7, 2003
  7. Jerry McG

    JPS Guest

    In message <bqusqh$eju$>,
    Nonsense; it doesn't degrade any more than if the inital JPG artifacts
    were actually part of the original scene. By working on it in a
    lossless 16-bit format, you avoid further JPG compression and numeric
    The JPEG artifacts in most cameras, at the highest quality setting, are
    insignificant unless you are going to be boosting the shadows or
    increasing local contrast or in some part of a global curve.

    The best choice is RAW->16-bit->16-bit, and the worst choice is
    JPG->JPG->JPG. JPG->16-bit-16-bit falls between them.
    JPS, Dec 7, 2003
  8. Jerry McG

    Larry Lynch Guest

    I see trying to apply LOGIC to anything GP says as an
    exercise for the "brain-pan" and I read (some of) his
    posts just to try to get the blood in my brain flowing.

    I use George like I use my treadmill, and my "mountain-

    The LEAST of the cameras I own will generally take
    better photos than a Sigmoid (excuse me) Sigma, (even
    the lowly Kodak 4530 if I dont PUSH it too hard).

    That 4530 is the LEAST of my cameras, but NOT the lowest
    in pixel count. Several of the cameras I use have 3 or
    3.2 mp, but they take GREAT pictures if they aren't
    pushed past the built in limits.

    This seems to be an argument that George cannot, and
    will not understand.

    Some photographers dont buy "pixel-count" or "promised
    color rendition" they buy performance, and the Sigmoid
    (9 and 10) are PISS POOR performers when it comes to the
    things that stand out most to ME, like FLESHTONES, and

    Should I ever happen upon the "Bluebird of Happiness"
    I'de want his picture to look like a bluebird,
    regardless of whether he was partially in shadow or not
    in the center of the frame. I wouldn't trust the job to
    a Sigma, I'de rather get the color right.
    Larry Lynch, Dec 7, 2003
  9. Jerry McG

    Frank H Guest

    Of course there's a reason to shoot JPEG in the first place - to save
    space on my portable camera storage.

    But when I get home storage is no problem. If I'm going to edit my pix
    I'm better off saving the edited version in a lossless format.

    Only an idiot would not use each format to maximise their different
    Frank H, Dec 7, 2003
  10. Jerry McG

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I use JPG when I have a rare opportunity to shoot something which may
    not be there for very long, like when shooting hummingbirds. I switch
    to JPEG so I can shoot as fast as I like.
    JPS, Dec 7, 2003
  11. Jerry McG

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    George (or whatever is your real name), you
    are one ceaseless ball-breaker...
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 7, 2003
  12. Jerry McG

    Eric Witte Guest

    The first few I found were like $20. I found a place called
    Is there a website?
    At the moment I'm just trying out services. I will shoot in RAW
    eventually. I'm sure it would not be perfect but it should look a lot
    more accurate! The original copy was edited over an over again as
    jpeg. Going TIF the entire process should keep more information.
    Since elements from two seperate JPGs were combined it will probably
    also have more color information.

    Eric Witte, Dec 7, 2003
  13. Jerry McG

    JPS Guest

    In message <15KAb.34022$>,
    Prepare for 6 years of this stuff. That's his fanaticism cycle.

    I wonder if you cropped out the date, so that you couldn't see the
    penny, and told a room full of people, "these are four letters, what are
    they", how many would say, "no, they're not, they're numbers". I know
    that they're supposed to be numbers 1959 or higher, and I'm still not
    sure what the SD9 penny's date is 19 is a given. The next one could be
    a 9 or an 8. The last one is a 1.

    What a joke.
    JPS, Dec 7, 2003
  14. Jerry McG

    Eric Witte Guest

    The first few I found were like $20. I found a place called

    Thanks, I found them!

    Eric Witte, Dec 7, 2003
  15. Jerry McG

    Ron Hunter Guest

    That is the way ANY good program will do ANY image save.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 7, 2003
  16. Jerry McG

    no Guest


    That's an opinion, of course, you must have a different definition of
    "razor shop." I have an E-20, before that an E-10 and while they have
    their uses, I wouldn't think of shooting a wedding with either one. At
    ISO 80 with plenty of controlled light at f5.6 or so they're
    acceptable for non-critical use, with a lot of post processing to
    lessen the horrendous noise. They're all but useless at 160 or 320,
    even with post processing. They're painfully slow and noisy at all
    ISO's regardless of the file type, but your clientele must not care,
    especially if you shoot at 1:8, which still shocks me. There's nothing
    but RAW for event work, as far as I'm concerned, but my standards are
    perhaps higher than yours and I'm serious about my work.
    Don't you make enough shooting weddings to spend $100 on the camera
    RAW plug??? Can't you figure out how to batch process? There are far
    better cameras than the E-20 for wedding work these days, you should
    buy one. These are terribly lame excuses, I'm sorry.
    Again, that's because you're apparently to cheap to spend money on
    bigger cards. Is business that bad? I don't know anyone shooting
    professionally with cards smaller than 1 gig, most have several 2 gig
    or larger. You're just cutting corners here, at your customer's
    expense. What do you think they would say if you told them honestly:
    "I'm shooting your once-in-a-lifetime event in low resolution because
    I don't have time to "dick around" (as you say) with high resolution
    files and am too cheap to spend money on storage cards and a better
    camera." If you're not willing to put the time, effort and money into
    your business you should give it up. This isn't "elitism," it's an

    It sounds like you're a bargain-basement wedding guy using consumer
    equipment satisfied with "good enough" quality, I hope you charge
    accordingly. I bet before you went digital you used 35mm with prints
    from WalMart. Too bad, I'm sure your customers are under the
    impression that they were getting the highest quality professional
    work, little do they know most of their guests are shooting higher
    quality images with their digital and 35mm cameras.
    no, Dec 8, 2003
  17. Jerry McG

    Martin Brown Guest

    Whilst you might like to think so, almost *none* of them ever do!

    However, what several of them do (and which might explain the OP's
    comments) is to simply rename the original loaded image when it is saved
    as some new lossy filetype. This means that unless you close the image
    and then reload the newly saved JPEG you will save identical first
    generation JPEG copies of the original image you loaded into the program
    with a host of different filenames.

    To find out what effect the JPEG compressed save has had on your image
    you must close it and then reopen it again to force it to decode the
    image instead of "helpfully" renaming the original.

    At maximum JPEG quality settings the inter generation differences
    between successive saves are very small, but they are not normally zero.

    Martin Brown, Dec 8, 2003
  18. fine.

    As long as your customer is happy with P&S quality for their keepsakes, it
    works great.
    George Preddy, Dec 8, 2003
  19. I highly recommend RAW mode, you can't get pro results shooting JPEG, the
    format itself can't support it. That isn't to say you can't sell a JPEG,
    mind you, you can sell used beer cans. 8-bit TIF is a little better and
    losslessly editable, but you are still throwing away 4095/4096ths of the
    color palette and around 90% of the unque colors once present in the RAW
    file. And the gamut/WB is permanently skewed, like it or lump it or make
    things worse. That's certainly an acceptable comprimise for snapshots and
    internet sharing. OTOH, you can create any number of 36-bit orignals, some
    which hardly resemble one another from a RAW file, and print a resulting
    JPEG at Walmart, or 16-bit TIF on Lightjet for museum quality output.

    The negative/print analogy is quite accurate: a RAW file is the digital
    negative, a JPEG is a bad print. I can't imagine a pro having pics
    developed at a 1 hour photo, pocketing the prints, and throwing away the
    negatives. But many do just that as JPEG shooters.

    After you shoot RAW for a while, you'll wonder what you were thinking before
    you did. That is, assuming your camera's RAW workflow is tolerable, which
    is a big "if" unfortunately. Productive RAW workflow is probably the
    singly most important quality attribute of any digital camera, and the most
    overlooked. With a good one, the time "penalty" for shooting RAW is only
    about 3 seconds per image to batch convert, even if you only want a set of
    rough JPEGs to start out.

    That is also assuming the camera body properly supports RAW mode, and some
    don't or have poor implementations. The S2 Pro for example only provides a
    small JPEG thumbnail preview of RAW images in-camera, making focus and
    detail assessment untennable--might as well shoot film IMO.
    George Preddy, Dec 8, 2003
  20. Jerry McG

    Eric Witte Guest

    I highly recommend RAW mode, you can't get pro results shooting JPEG, the
    There were a number of reasons for my doing JPEG. I still need to
    play around in Photoshop CS quite a bit. I have trouble getting them
    looking right. Sometimes I get it, other times I can not figure out
    what to do.

    When I went on vacation I had only had the camera for 1 week. Also
    usually someone else took the picture. I wanted to make it as easy as
    possible. Especially since I did not know the language :) It was
    hard describing how to get it to focus! I had to discard about 20%
    because they had terrible focus. I'm using a Canon 300d.

    I found a company called Thomas Reproductions. They will have a
    lightjet copy for me to pick up in the morning. Right now I'm just
    testing the waters.

    Eric Witte, Dec 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.