JPEG versus TIFF

In article <sRTEe.5467$ says…

I have dozens and dozens of images I have created in JPEG format using PS7. I sell small prints and greeting cards at a local market. The prints are usually no bigger than 8X10, and printed on a inkjet printer.
I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format. Originally, I do a lot of editing of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain better detail if I work in TIFF format? Since most of the original images are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?
I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white area.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have into a TIFF format?

I something of a creature of habit, but I’m wondering if I should change my whole approach to working with images in PS7.

A lot to ask for, but any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Gene

Gene,

As you state, your workflow methods seem to be working well. However, as you also state, when JPG’ing a JPG, you get artifacts.

If you shoot in JPG format, I’d recommend saving the file in PSD, when you first open it to edit it. When you then Flatten (any Layers) and re Save_As JPG, you will gain some artifacts and loose some data, however, that will be as bad as it gets, if you always go back to the PSD, edit some more, then Save_As JPG. It will be the same as doing that the first time, except with the edited changes.

Now, as your business progresses, you might want to consider shooting in TIFF, or RAW, doing your edits first THEN saving to JPG, or supplying your printer with a TIFF image, maybe with LZW compression. Another possibility in this workflow situation would be to Open the RAW in Adobe’s DNG converter, save it as a DNG, then either Open that, or go back to your RAW and Open in PS. There has been some discussion lately on the various camera mfgr’s RAW formats. DNG may some day be the answer to that.

Hunt

"Aloha" wrote in message

I have dozens and dozens of images I have created in JPEG format using PS7. I sell small prints and greeting cards at a local market. The prints are usually no bigger than 8X10, and printed on a inkjet printer.
I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format. Originally, I do a lot of editing of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain better detail if I work in TIFF format? Since most of the original images are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white area.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have into a TIFF format?

I something of a creature of habit, but I’m wondering if I should change my whole approach to working with images in PS7.

A lot to ask for, but any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Gene

Save everything as a psd before you start working on it – then export to the appropriate format. If you keep resaving a jpeg, you lose detail and information each time. Very generally speaking, jpegs are best when you need compression — for screen applications like web sites — tiff stores more information and is therefore better for printing.

Flo

"Aloha" wrote in message

I have dozens and dozens of images I have created in JPEG format using PS7. I sell small prints and greeting cards at a local market. The prints are usually no bigger than 8X10, and printed on a inkjet printer.
I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

If you are having no problems, you should at least consider continuing to do what you are doing.

Originally, I do a lot of editing of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain better detail if I work in TIFF format? Since most of the original images are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Each save to JPEG loses a bit of detail. Prove this to yourself by saving and loading the same image repeatedly – after 30 or so saves the image will look terrible. A certain percentage of this happens each time you re-save your image.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white area.

Yes, these are sometimes called "mosquitos". You can minimize them by saving at a higher quality, or using a non-lossy format such as PSD or TIFF.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have into a TIFF format?

Not really – unless you are considering editing them again.

I something of a creature of habit, but I’m wondering if I should change my whole approach to working with images in PS7.

We’re all creatures of habit, to some degree. My inclination would be to use TIFF or PSD for your edited images, storage being so cheap. But, as others have implied, there is even more that you can do to improve image quality. For maximum quality, you may want to capture your images in TIFF or in your camera’s raw format, and avoid using JPEG at all.

This will use more storage and time, and result in a slightly better quality image. Is it worth it? Only you can decide that.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.

Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Aloha" wrote

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the

white

area.

Re: JPG quality
All jpgs are not created equal…
If you must save a file in jpg format, Photoshop Save for Web 100% quality jpg is as close to lossless as you can get.
The image quality is better than Save As (jpg) at Quality=12, and the file size is usually smaller.
The catch is, very large files may take quite a while to process, and can even crash/stall Photoshop.
Also, you lose your defined image ppi.
But in a pinch, I’ve sent quite large files to the print shop at 100% quality, and they’ve turned out great
(much to the surprise of printers, who believe ‘if it’s a jpg, it’s gonna look like s$%!’).
Test it for yourself – layer the original under the jpg and blend in difference mode with a contrast layer on top to exaggerate any differences…look, no mosquitoes.
-alu

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Every time you open and then "re save" the image with .jpg you will create additional compression errors.

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

Waldo

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:10:42 +0200, Waldo found these
unused words floating about:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

TIFF is mor of an internationally recognized format, however, .psd is also my choice for saving/storing INTERNALLY. No loss, so you can export (save-as) to any other format.

No need to convert before editing, either! Just "SAVE-AS" and PS will do it when saving!

Always better to print from a LOSSLESS file, than a lossy <G>!

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:10:42 +0200, Waldo found these
unused words floating about:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white
background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working
file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

TIFF is mor of an internationally recognized format, however, .psd is also my choice for saving/storing INTERNALLY. No loss, so you can export (save-as) to any other format.

No need to convert before editing, either! Just "SAVE-AS" and PS will do it
when saving!

Always better to print from a LOSSLESS file, than a lossy <G>!

I save 3 versions of my PS’ed work:

the original file in PSD, uncropped showing all layers, for my self as refence and if changes are needed.

one (or several) TIFF’s: Flattened so Windows and Mac users can see them wiothout owning PS, with correct res and cropping for prints, I often save several versions this way (different layers turned on and off, B&W and color, etc)

then I take my TIFF’s and make web sized jpgs for interenet and emailing

"Waldo" wrote in message

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white
background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

Waldo

..psd’s can be rather large files. If you don’t mind tying up storage, I guess .psd’s are fine. Also, for me at least once I am done editing I am done editing. I do keep my original scans for archive but I am not sure why as I have never gone back and re worked an image.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:53:13 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE" found these unused words floating about:

"Waldo" wrote in message

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white
background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

Waldo

.psd’s can be rather large files. If you don’t mind tying up storage, I guess .psd’s are fine. Also, for me at least once I am done editing I am done editing. I do keep my original scans for archive but I am not sure why as I have never gone back and re worked an image.

700 MB < $0.10 on CD-ROM
4.4 GB < $0.50 on Data DVD

Sheesh, storage is CHEAP, loss of hours of work isn’t !!!

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:53:13 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE" found these unused words floating about:

"Waldo" wrote in message

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is
better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save
a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a
file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use
JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white
background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but
I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

Waldo

.psd’s can be rather large files. If you don’t mind tying up storage, I guess .psd’s are fine. Also, for me at least once I am done editing I am done editing. I do keep my original scans for archive but I am not sure why
as I have never gone back and re worked an image.

700 MB < $0.10 on CD-ROM
4.4 GB < $0.50 on Data DVD

Sheesh, storage is CHEAP, loss of hours of work isn’t !!!

As I said, I never go back and re work images. Use to save .psd’s until I asked my self why I was doing it. I understand why people do. I have complete editorial say so. If you have to take yours to a client or editor and have to make changes on there request then by all means use .psd as your saved file.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:09:26 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE" found these unused words floating about:

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:53:13 -0500, "DBLEXPOSURE" found these unused words floating about:

"Waldo" wrote in message

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is
better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save
a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a
file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use
JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white
background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but
I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

Waldo

.psd’s can be rather large files. If you don’t mind tying up storage, I guess .psd’s are fine. Also, for me at least once I am done editing I am done editing. I do keep my original scans for archive but I am not sure why
as I have never gone back and re worked an image.

700 MB < $0.10 on CD-ROM
4.4 GB < $0.50 on Data DVD

Sheesh, storage is CHEAP, loss of hours of work isn’t !!!

As I said, I never go back and re work images. Use to save .psd’s until I asked my self why I was doing it. I understand why people do. I have complete editorial say so. If you have to take yours to a client or editor and have to make changes on there request then by all means use .psd as your saved file.

Since I have various uses for imagery, including sales to multiple users, it’s practical to save ONE image and then turn off layers ("PROOF", Copyright, etc.) as appropriate for the buyer.

It’s also practical when adjusting the cropping (per request) to fit a ‘format’. That way -I- retain control. <G>

In article <81uHe.2080$>,
says…

"J. A. Mc." wrote in message

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:10:42 +0200, Waldo found these
unused words floating about:

[SNIP]

I save 3 versions of my PS’ed work:

the original file in PSD, uncropped showing all layers, for my self as refence and if changes are needed.

A very good plan. I had to head back to my "original" PSD to recover a " background" Layer, that had been inadvertantly edited, and enough done, so that History could not help me. In my workflow, after your suggestion for the "original," I usually do an 01, through 0x, along the way. Boy am I ever glad that HDD real estate is inexpensive. I’ll even save all of these variations, just in case the client changes their mind and says, "hey, I think I like what you did last month, better than what we have now!" I hate it, when I have only the original and then what I think will be the final, only to discover that variation 03 is where I need to be.

one (or several) TIFF’s: Flattened so Windows and Mac users can see them wiothout owning PS, with correct res and cropping for prints, I often save several versions this way (different layers turned on and off, B&W and color, etc)

then I take my TIFF’s and make web sized jpgs for interenet and emailing

Hunt

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"Waldo" wrote in message

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <sRTEe.5467$>,
"Aloha" wrote:

I’ve had no problem with the results I get, but I have heard that it is better to save images in a TIFF format.

Yes, that is correct.

Originally, I do a lot of editing
of the first image applying filters, layers, actions, etc. Will I maintain
better detail if I work in TIFF format?

Yes.

JPEG is a "lossy" format. In English that means that every time you save a JPEG, the quality of the image is degraded in order to make the file size smaller on your disk. This degradation is cumulative–if you save a file, then open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again. Open it and save it again, the quality is degraded again.
Do not use JPEG unless you have a clear, specific reason you have to use JPEG and no other format will work. The JPEG standard was invented for situations where the size of the file on disk is critical, and image quality is not important.

Since most of the original images
are JPEG should I convert them to TIFF before I start editing?

Yes. You can not make up the quality that was lost when it was first saved as JPEG, but you can prevent further degredation by working in TIFF from that point on.

I do notice that if I re-open a closed JPEG image that has a lot of white
background that I often get lots of "ghost like colored pixels" in the white
area.

Correct. You are seeing the image degradation I’m talking about.

Also would there be any value in converting all the images I currently have
into a TIFF format?

If you want to edit them in the future, yes. If they are finished and oyu’ll never edit them again, no–the damage is already done.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Use .jpg to save for web publishing or archiving. Use .Tif as your working file. I belive it is better to print from a .tif as well

Why use TIFF? I always use PSD so I have all layer, masks, type etcetera stored as well. The final output MAY be JPG depending on the purpose, but I keep the original as PSD. I hardly ever use TIFF.

Waldo

.psd’s can be rather large files. If you don’t mind tying up storage, I guess .psd’s are fine. Also, for me at least once I am done editing I am done editing. I do keep my original scans for archive but I am not sure why as I have never gone back and re worked an image.

TIFFs aren’t small either, except when JPEG compression is used…

The most difficult thing of archiving is trashing data when you don’t need it anymore… Don’t try to store everything forever!

Remember, storage is cheap these days.

Waldo