Monica,
When the image is stored on the hard disk, the JPG format will be a smaller file because of compression. TIFF is larger because it does not use compression (well, some do, but that’s not the issue here).
When the image is open, it takes up the same amount of space in your computer’s memory no matter which format is used to store it… JPG or TIFF. The JPG is "fluffed" back up to full size once you open it.
Nothing for you to worry about as far as file sizes go.
HTH,
Byron
Monica
Have no fear everyone is confused by this in the beginning. What you see when you read your files on you hard drive the Kb for Jpg and the Meg for Tiff is the actual size of the file stored on the hard drive. The Jpg is highly compressed so it takes up less space. Once the files are brought into Element what you are seeing is the actual size of the image.
What is best is hard to say it depends on what you want to do with the file but every time you save in Jpg you loose some data usually not much in the beginning but it is accumulative. With Tiff and Psd you do not loose any information. Most people here will open a file work on it and save it to Tif or Psd and only saving to Jpg if they are posting to the web or sending it to email. You do not have to convert from Jpg until you intend to resave the file.
Grant
The answer to the other part of your question is that neither is really "better" than the other in some respects. However, each time you open a JPEG image, edit it, and save it again, the file size compresses further. Over time image degradation will occur. Many people archive nice fresh JPEGs on CDs. When one of these is copied back to the hard drive, all of the original image data is still there. For editing and resaving purposes, you’d want to stick with the TIFF or PSD.
Thank you all so very much for your responses. FINALLY, I ‘GET IT" Many thank you’s. This forum is fantastic, lots of very smart people.
Monica stick around it only gets better. I suspect in a short time you will be helping out the new comers as well.
Grant
Hello All-
I just learned something else. No wonder when I scanned in my photo using JPG the detail was not as good as it was using PSD(which I had done earlier just by default). Thanks guys. Now another ussue I have is when I scan my photo with my Epson 2400, it does not give me an option to specify actual pixelation numbers – It just shows a slider that gives one an option to control compression form "Low Quality" to "High Quality" with another option for encoding to bubble in either "Standard" or "Progressive". So, judging by what was said earlier – that it is better to set the resolution to a higher value before getting it into Elements – Then, the only way I can do this with my scanner is to adjust toward "High Q" or "Low Q" – which would be the same thing as entering actual numeric resolution values. Is this correct? Someone said in another topic that when you wait to change the reso to a higher value after getting the photo into Elements it is not as good as doing it initially using the scanner. I may have to contact Epson to find out if there is another way to specify resolution. Hope I made this clear enough – If not let me know. Thanks.
Les
Hi Les, I always scan at the highest res that your scanner will do, because you might want to crop it, or you might just want to use a part of the picture and you will need all the res you can get.
I really got a lot out of this topic, as I try to save my photos as .psd to work on, and .jpg to put on my pbase account, and now that I will be getting a DVD burner, to know that having them as "nice fresh .jpgs" has really helped me understand this.
I feel more confident now, that this has been so well explained. And always work on a duplicate!
thanks,
Jane
Unless you plan to crop your picture in Elements, scanning at a resolution higher than about 300 dpi isn’t going to help much, if at all. All you do is make a very large image on your hard drive. I may be wrong, but I believe I’ve read that scanning resolution has more to do with the deminsions of the image than the quality once you are above 300. Much the same as adjusting the resolution on your monitor results in smaller graphics displays but the image quality is still around 72 dpi. Please somebody, confirm or correct my thinking on this. Scanning resolution has always been a big source of misunderstanding for a lot of us.
Les,
When you set the resolution in the scanner software, you are deciding how many pixels you want in the scanned image.
That is quite different from changing resolution in Photoshop, which merely changes the SIZE of the pixels, but does not change the NUMBER of pixels in the image. Unless, of course, you enable resampling when you change resolution. That should be done only as a last resort, and you are right, it would be much better to scan at higher resolution rather than to upsample the image later in Photoshop.
Bert
Bert,
Thanks for your confirmation – Your response too Jane. I’m still trying to designate numeric values in my scanner application, instead of using that "High" or "Low". I just updated my Epson scanner with a new utility that comes up right before scanning. However, after I choose TIFF, & even put it at the max – I get a very small photo in this new Epson Scan utility I’ve added. And I wind up having to zoom way-into the photo to edit. I know that this is not right. Anyway, I think that this little utility is too Mickey Mouse(no reflection on Mickey). This day & time you don’t know whose toes you’re steppin’ on.
I’m probably going to have to get in touch with Epson support tomorrow – And I hope I get the right tech. No matter what, I’ll keep plugging away until I solve this thing.
Regards—Les
Surely, Epson scanner interface should have some sort of "beginner/advanced" or "automatic/custom" settings, to allow precise control over your input/output options?
Mac
Mac has a good point. On my low end Epson Perfection 1250, the so-called Smart Panel will take you to an Automatic mode unless you quickly clickon Manual. If you go to Manual, a whole bunch of choices become available.
Chuck
Just looked back to see what model Les is using, see it is Epson 2400. There is definitely a manual mode with this scanner.
Here is one page that shows how to get into it. Looks rather like a clumsy way you have to do it (starting scan in auto mode, then canceling, or somesuch – look toward bottom of page):
http://www.library.kent.edu/avs/sms/howto/scanning1c.html Surely this is in the manual somewhere?
Mac
Mac, that’s the same technique used on the 1250. Not a great design….
Chuck
Geez, HP scanners don’t have lame software like that.
<ducking and running for cover>
You guys crack me up. But let me tell you that I just cancelled a scan like Mac said to do, and guess what? Bingo! A manual option popped up, and then a utility that has all the options – including what I was trying to do – designate numeric dimensions – I finally was able get the thing in another way, but Mac, your way is so much better. I could only specify file extension my way. Shame on Epson for not fixing this, but this scanner is still a very good one when it comes to the quality of the scan. Lastly, the earlier poster was right when she said that this site has a lot of smart people. Compared to sites like Google’s comp. periphs.printers – there is no comparison. That site is more interested in criticism and arguing back & forth like children for weeks about anti-semitism and profanity – instead of wanting to really help someone. There’s no place for it, and it shouldn’t be allowed. Anyway, this is definitely a professional site, and Adobe has a real winner here. Just hope it stays that way. Thanks so much. Regards
Glad you got to the advanced option mode, Les.
Btw, as far as UseNet, comp.periphs.scanners is a good group for info, some very sharp folks there, lots of science. While there is the occassional digital jihad there, at least it stays centered on scanning.
Mac
Thanks Mac,
I’ll have to check that out. And as far as that subject is concerned, I totally agree with you. There’s nothing wrong with a little going back forth – as long as it doesn’t get carried away. You don’t want something to be a total bore. In my experiences – and I’ve had many – you have to have a little esprit de corps, or you’ll go nuts and not do as well. There needs to be balance – and that sometimes is very hard to do. Anyway, I’ve said enough about that. I’m just glad I found this place. Oh, by the way, the guy who mentioned his HP scanner – I’ve never tried an HP scanner, but I just bought an HP 7960 Photosmart. It may be expensive as far as ink is concerned, but I’m not one of those who churned out 20 or 30 at a time on photo paper. I like to test, and get something as good as possible before…And this is by far the best printer for B&W photos. I printed out the same old photo on both the Canon i860 and the 7960 and the HP was so much more detailed – especially the hair – where it showed different shades – but the Canon only showed one color – black in the hair. there may be slightly better color printers out there, but not when it comes to B&W. Thanks Again. Regards
Les, thanks for sharing your experiences with the 7960. I keep eyeing it at my local Sam’s (where it’s been downpriced a couple times lately) and wonder whether that might be the right printer for my also modest needs.
Chuck
chuck-
actually, I had previously purchased the 7960, printed out a few B&W photos, and when I looked at the graphs in the utility that pops up & saw how much the ink appeared to go down, I got a little concerned – especially hearing about Canon & Epson’s new individual ink tanks. And the HP’s tanks, of course, have the tri-color tanks – and I’m sure you know about that. But after talking to a few people – some said that there’s not much of the other inks left in the same tank where one color has run out. We’ll just see – But I also read in a forum where someone said to just keep on using a tank that tells you a color is out – that it may be telling you a little pre-mature – and as long as the pictures look ok – why not keep on. That’s what I do with my Walkabout radios, also – I just let the batteries keep on beepin’. Anyway, that’s how I was able to compare the two printers’ results. B&W quality won out over the speed and excellent text from the i860. But the text on the 7960 is almost laser-like too. If you want to check out a very thorough review, go to this link: www.photo-i.co.uk When you get to the initial screen, scroll down near the bottom left and click on the picture of the 7960. I was thinking about buying the new Epson R800, which is also reviewed there, but the $400 price tag & ink consumption of the R800 (Even though it has individual tanks) is supposed to be very high, according to another review I read. I got my 7960 from Costco for $289 delivered to the door, which includes shipping. They don’t carry it in the store. The thing about Costco is that they have a 6 month return policy on computers, and that’s what made me re-buy the printer from them again. Hope this helped. Regards.
Les, please keep us posted on the ink consumption of the HP 7960. My mother had been looking at that one but not ready to buy just yet. She had asked for my opinion. Told her i thought it was probably a good printer …after reading steve’s digicams reviews…although, if it sucks ink….hmmmm, may not be the right choice. Thanks.
