Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Jpeg to Tiff

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 9:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I shoot in Jpeg mode using my canon 300D, then open in photoshop and save
as a tiff. Will I loose any quality. I know I can shoot in raw. I was just
wondering.

More about : jpeg tiff

Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:10:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:10:42 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>> As other have said, quality no. You will however lose all the exif data
>> contained within the file.

>Depends on the program you use!

I wasn't aware tif could store the info. What are some common programs
that will do this? Do they also allow later saving in jpg with this
info completely intact?
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 2:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You already lost the quality by storing it as JPG in the camera.
Converting to TIFF will not lose any more.

JPG is basically 8-bit gamma corrected data (If I remember correctly
this is 10.7 bits of 'projected' data with a signal to noise ratio
guarenteed never to excede 256:1)
RAW is basically 12-bit linear data direct from the A/D (11.2 bits of
real data::S/N <= 2300:1)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:04:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Ed Ruf egruf_usenet@cox.net
>Date: 1/19/2005 7:10 AM Central Standard Time

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:10:42 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
><rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Ed Ruf wrote:
>>> As other have said, quality no. You will however lose all the exif data
>>> contained within the file.
>
>>Depends on the program you use!
>
>I wasn't aware tif could store the info. What are some common programs
>that will do this? Do they also allow later saving in jpg with this
>info completely intact?

I use BreezeBrowser to convert RAW images taken with my 10D to TIFF and all the
exif data is displayed when when I look at the TIFF with BB. When I use BB to
strip out the imbedded JPG, the major info of exif is included with the JPG.
Haven't checked to see what happens if I start out with a JPG.

Ron
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:03:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
> For instance I take many pictures in jpeg format with my 300D.
> I copy *all* my images, JPEG or not, right away to CDs (more than
> one) and put those away as archival storage.
>
> But then I'm a nut. Most folks won't do that.

But this is a superb practice. Surpassed by shooting in, and doing the
same thing with, the RAW format.

I don't do this, but one day I will. Right now I rely on multiple
computers and a couple of firewire HDs to back stuff up onto, but it'd
be safer to burn CDs as well.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:25:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:

> Paul J Gans wrote:

>> For instance I take many pictures in jpeg format with my 300D.
>> I copy *all* my images, JPEG or not, right away to CDs (more than
>> one) and put those away as archival storage.
>>
>> But then I'm a nut. Most folks won't do that.
>
> But this is a superb practice. Surpassed by shooting in, and doing
the
> same thing with, the RAW format.

A CD is useful for those who might take a few hundred images per year
or something. Even then, after about the second or third CD one
realizes the basic silliness of the idea. CD's are the 3.5" diskettes
of the modern world.

> I don't do this, but one day I will. Right now I rely on multiple
> computers and a couple of firewire HDs to back stuff up onto, but
it'd
> be safer to burn CDs as well.

I have a pair of external 120GB disks, coming on on 50% full. Do the
arithmetic: how many CD's would I need? Even DVD's are lookimg dumb.
I've been waffling the last few months on whether or not to formalize
everything and build a cheap RAID terabyte (or more) server. The
decision hinges on collection rate, how much time I can put into
editing (aka selecting) images, and so on. I would imagine for a
professional photographer this sort of decision is a no-brainer.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 9:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 20 Jan 2005 10:25:48 -0800, in rec.photo.digital eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
wrote:
>I have a pair of external 120GB disks, coming on on 50% full. Do the
>arithmetic: how many CD's would I need? Even DVD's are lookimg dumb.
>I've been waffling the last few months on whether or not to formalize
>everything and build a cheap RAID terabyte (or more) server. The
>decision hinges on collection rate, how much time I can put into
>editing (aka selecting) images, and so on. I would imagine for a
>professional photographer this sort of decision is a no-brainer.

While what you've done is good, imo, you seem to have overlooked the need
for off-site storage unless that is what the second disk is for.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
January 21, 2005 7:02:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in
news:aridnTpAOeBePm3cRVn-oQ@comcast.com:

> the more you open and close a jpg
> image the more it degrades, but you have to look close. When you save
> the original it's probably only been opened a few times.
>

Urban legend. Opening a file does not change it. Saving changes to a .jpg
may or may not impact unaltered portions of the photo, depending on the
software. In Photoshop, I can open a jpg, and do whatever edits I want in
the lower left hand corner. When I save as, and then open and compare to
the original, only the parts I changed are different.

Bob
!