The literature asserts that images taken in the RAW form and edited in a form like TIFF preserve
image properties that are lost when edited in JPEG form. I have been experimenting with this and can’t seem to
produce any difference between images edited and saved as TIFF and images edited and saved as highest quality JPEG.
I use Photoshop to do all my editing and although the relative file sizes (RAW, TIFF and JPEG) are reasonable (21MB, 60MB, 11.9 MB)
there doesn’t seem to be any image quality price to pay for using the smaller JPEG images. This doesn’t make sense and I am at a loss to understand.
It depends on the type of editing one performs, and the number of "edit -> save" also. With JPEG, it's guaranteed that some compression will happen and it might be very obvious with some forms of editing.
In your case, the JPEG is already very large, so I suspect the highest quality (meaning less compression) is pretty robust, but it is still not lossless and you can never know under which editing/saving conditions you might end up with artifacts.
Best of both worlds is PNG. Lossless, yet smaller than TIFF. Can be edited to your heart's content without any loss of information per edit/save.
Well,
RAW is the master of your photos with maximum detail and which allows you modify, adapt a lot of parameters. And as you have the master of this photo, you can create others good versions of it when you need.
TIFF is better for quality works like when you need to send photos or a print mockup (it coud be a PDF whith high quality and Tiff photo included) to a print worker. You have more information (more data and pixels) in the file than in the same JPEG photo file.
JPEG is typically interesting for the web activity (publication of photo on website, exchange) becaue it allows a selectable tradeoff between storage size and image quality. But, if you need to rework the photo in Jpeg, you could have issues if you need a better quality because JPEG removes redundant part of the original master. New Deep Learning models could help to retrieve qualities of the original photo version but there is no garantiy that you could retrieve the exact "missing values".
But, as a webdesigner you coud have issues to make a better version of a JPEG photo because if the compression is to high (56/100 is the last limit before to go in the low quality range of JPEG from Adobe Photoshop), you could have compression artefacts (Glitch). "A compression artifact (or artefact) is a noticeable distortion of media (including images, audio, and video) caused by the application of lossy compression. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact
As a print designer or if you need to make customizations (artistic adjustments) or analyze (zoom) a photo, you prefer to have the TIFF or RAW files.
For example, Cinepaint is a free software to work on High fidelity image file types such as DPX, OpenEXR and 16-bit TIFF. http://www.cinepaint.org/
Compare the quality of details:
- https://www.anotherworldstudios.com/photogrammetry-data-comparison-nef-vs-tiff16-vs-jpg/
- https://fixthephoto.com/highest-quality-image-format.html
It's more or less like when most people cannot distinguish the difference between the quality of sound of a 100000$ piano and a 200000$ piano but the difference seems evident to some professional musicians.. see (listen to) the following video comparing some of the most expensive pianos in the world: https://youtu.be/B60LhnA6MYg
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Images