Photo File Formats

[GWestphal]

Which one should I use? I shot some on my camera in RAW, which I then have to convert. For pro work RAW is fine, but for walk around/family photos I use the JPEG setting in my camera. What kind of JPEG does that mean? Is is just regular JPEG or is it lossless JPEG2000.

What do you use for storing photos? JPEG2000, PNG, TIFF etc?

 

[Munky]

Jpeg means regular lossy jpeg. The jpeg2000 format is not widely supported as far as I know.

 

[twistedlogic]

Which one should I use?

Whatever works for you. Sounds like jpeg is it.

I shoot RAW as I prefer to post process an image how I see fit. I'm far from a Pro.

 

[rivan]

Which one should I use? ... Is is just regular JPEG or is it lossless JPEG2000.

It's lossy JPG. But typically cameras that support RAW has JPG fine which is not all THAT lossy, and it's perfectly fine for 10 megapixel images that don't get printed huge or heavily cropped.

The loss on JPG is highly variable depending on the settings your device or software supports - low compression means low loss - higher compression means higher loss.

What do you use for storing photos? JPEG2000, PNG, TIFF etc?

Whether I'm shooting RAW or JPG, I always keep the original, and anything I modify I keep as TIFF (sometimes layered sometimes not, depending on the need).

You will gain absolutely nothing if you shoot JPG then store as TIFF; it'll just increase file size with no change in quality.

You should avoid saving any file as a JPG more than once or twice.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's lossy JPG. But typically cameras that support RAW has JPG fine which is not all THAT lossy, and it's perfectly fine for 10 megapixel images that don't get printed huge or heavily cropped.

The loss on JPG is highly variable depending on the settings your device or software supports - low compression means low loss - higher compression means higher loss.



Whether I'm shooting RAW or JPG, I always keep the original, and anything I modify I keep as TIFF (sometimes layered sometimes not, depending on the need).

You will gain absolutely nothing if you shoot JPG then store as TIFF; it'll just increase file size with no change in quality.

You should avoid saving any file as a JPG more than once or twice.

If you edit pics with Lightroom you don't need to resave as TIFF. Lightroom just saves the edits you make.

 

[corkyg]

It depends on what you are shooting and the ultimate use. Example, last SUnday I had the mission of photo coverage of "Welcome Sunday" at my church. In one hour I took over 45 pictures - then put them all on a CD for our newsletter editor. They were all "large" jpeg files about 7 mb each. They will ultimately be used at 1024x768 size- so RAW makes no sense.

 

[smitbret]

I always shoot in RAW and save in .tiff. When I'm ready to send the finished product out, I will convert to .jpeg as the last step since it's more likely that family/friends/clients will be more likely to recognize it and know what to do with it.

I always save a .tiff file for anything that I want archived.

For me, .jpeg is saved for snapshots or those times when card space is at a premium.

 

[angry hampster]

I always shoot in RAW and save in .tiff. When I'm ready to send the finished product out, I will convert to .jpeg as the last step since it's more likely that family/friends/clients will be more likely to recognize it and know what to do with it.

I always save a .tiff file for anything that I want archived.

For me, .jpeg is saved for snapshots or those times when card space is at a premium.

With modern cameras, the quality between JPEG and TIFF is negligible IMO. Not worth the extra storage space.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Well if your not saving the RAW files, then I'd say backup the tiff files first, since they can be 16bit and not just the jpg's 8bit. Otherwise you could be losing a lot of light information.

 

[corkyg]

With 21 megapixel JPGs, I see TIFF as yesterday's news.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Well as long as you keep some sort of RAW file backup, it's all good. Backing up just the jpgs is just a bad idea.

BTW is tiff destructive or not?

 

[RobDickinson]

I shoot almost exclusively raw.

But see that jpg can be appropriate in some situations.

If you dont mind the baked in WB and sharpening etc and you dont want or have time to process them before uploading/printing.

Remember your software on the PC (Canon DPP etc) can produce an identical duplicate to whatever in camera jpg you would have got.

 

[Gintaras]

It depends on what you are shooting and the ultimate use. Example, last SUnday I had the mission of photo coverage of "Welcome Sunday" at my church. In one hour I took over 45 pictures - then put them all on a CD for our newsletter editor. They were all "large" jpeg files about 7 mb each. They will ultimately be used at 1024x768 size- so RAW makes no sense.

I don't think, someone like that should give any advices to thosr, who interested in photography....

JPEG vs RAW isn't about file sizes, but is, as mentioned, about how people will look at photo.
RAW gives more control when editing photo - no matter, in camera's brand soft, PS or PS LR or RAW Shooter Essiantials...
Just after you can reduce resolution to pc viewing.

I do use both JPEG+RAW in my camera, I've recovered very underexposed photos to normal thanks to RAW, prolly, I could do it with JPEG, but it could take hours...

 

[Gintaras]

With 21 megapixel JPGs, I see TIFF as yesterday's news.

Just too lonely but with need something to say? Isn't Cory so?

Megapixels, JPEGs, TIFFs ...etc...And what about camera's sensor?
Let's say, I'm Cory's "friend", who wants to "cover" that guy, who should receive SSI instead of giving "advices":

Picture taken with Olympus E-520 - 10 Megapixel SENSOR camera with JPEG converted to large print size, which becomes 54(9000x6000) Megapixel photo file about ~25 Mb in size. and how it looks printed @ 20x30 inches @ AdoramaPix on Kodak Endura Metallic paper, of course, you have to look at actual print, might not look good on here, and I'm not a pro photographer:

Frame 24x36, mat I did cut myself with Logan Mat Cutter...

 

[bobdole369]

I prefer only RAW. It gives the flexibility of moving the exposure up or down a couple stops in most cases. It also lets you edit much more cleanly. Doing levels or curves on a jpeg can be awful sometimes. But on a converted TIFF all the data is there so it comes out cleaner.

 

[smitbret]

With modern cameras, the quality between JPEG and TIFF is negligible IMO. Not worth the extra storage space.

Depends on how often you are going to be saving changes to the file. Every time a JPEG is opened and saved, there is some detail loss. The JPEG could be 10x the size of the TIFF, but the quality will still be worse because JPEG is a lossy format. There's no way around it.

 

[ronbo613]

I shoot nearly exclusively in RAW, except for my Canon DSLR, where I shoot RAW+HQ JPEG for convenience, mainly because I want to control the final image, not let a camera processor do it. Maybe it's because I am an old school photographer who has an obsession for control from my black and white, zone system darkroom days, this seems like a modern version of that.
One of the major factors I considered when purchasing my latest camera; a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5, was that it produced images in a RAW format.
Nothing wrong with JPEGs, especially if the images are being used on the internet.