Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 26 Nov 2008 (Wednesday) 13:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tiff Conversion in Camera Raw

 
martinsmith
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: S Glos, UK
     
Nov 26, 2008 13:34 |  #1

I'm looking for some advice.

I did some studio-styyle portraits for a family at the weekend. I've tweaked the images in CS3 camera raw and want to save them to a CD or 2 for them to arrange printing.

I usually just save my own files as smaller jpegs to post on the net. Am I right in thinking that I would be better saving these as Tiff files and what size settings would be best as they want to print the best ones at around A4 or maybe larger. My original TIFFs came out as 100mb which is obviously too big, so how would I save them to be as small as possible without causing loos of quality. My camera is a 40D if this helps.

Thanks


[SIZE=1]ms-imaging (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Dermit
Goldmember
1,815 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 172
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Chandler, Arizona
     
Nov 26, 2008 14:03 |  #2

If you have already processed the RAW and now need to convert them then convert to sRGB jpg at quality 10 or 12 with no resizing/downsizing (keep full resolution) and you'll be fine.


5DmkII, 5DmkIII, 5DS R, 15mm, 16-35 f/2.8 II L, 100 Macro f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, 580EX II, 580EX, 550EX
http://www.pixelcraftp​hoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
martinsmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: S Glos, UK
     
Nov 26, 2008 14:06 |  #3

Thanks - I was under the impression that you lose quality with jpgs.

8 or 16 bits per channel? I notice that photoshop won't let you save as a jpg if you leave on 16.


[SIZE=1]ms-imaging (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PixelMagic
Cream of the Crop
5,546 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Racine, WI
     
Nov 26, 2008 14:35 |  #4

By design a JPEG can only be an 8-bit file.

You're better off saving them as sRGB JPEGs as suggested earlier since that's the format most printers would prefer.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bobster
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,233 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1438
Joined May 2006
Location: Dorset, England
     
Nov 26, 2008 14:36 |  #5

only JPG2000 allows 16bit support

JPG is 8bit only, 16bit is useful when editing, but isn't really needed when sending to a lab for printing..


Robert Whetton (external link) Dorset Portrait & Events Photographer | Photoshop Guru
Gear | Tweet (external link) | Insta (external link) | Ultimate Lens MA FoCal 2 (external link)| Ultimate RAW Editor (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dermit
Goldmember
1,815 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 172
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Chandler, Arizona
     
Nov 26, 2008 14:47 |  #6

Herein lies the problem... if you only shoot in jpg (jpg is 8bit only) then you are capturing far less data than if you were to shoot in RAW. Far less. So. When does this matter? It mattersif you need to do any edits that affect the colors/tones of the image. This includes exposure tweaks (curves, levels, etc.). If you start with 16 bit (RAW, TIFF, etc) you have way more tones than the human eye can even see. So sliding around these tones means you are pulling data around from a large bucket of nearly endless colors and tones. So when you get everything exactly where you need them to be you can afford to trash a lot of the data since it can't be seen or printed anyway.

But, if you start with very little data and drag it around, if you gain a tone in one area, lets say by brightening things up with levels, then you lose a tone from somewhere else. Nothing is going to 'backfill' into the areas left vacant by you moving things around. With 16 bit when you move things around there is plenty of data to 'backfill' into the areas to give you plenty of tones and details.

So hopefully you can see that once everything is tweaked right where you need it, it then does not matter much if it is 16 or 8 bit, jpg or tiff. But you always want to hang onto the RAW files so you can go back and re-process it with 100% of the data if you think it might need it.


Hmmm, let's try and clarify... lets say in 8bit/jpg you are capable of capturing 256 shades of data. But let's say you underexposed by one stop. This may mena you are missing up to 125 shades of tonality. So when you use levels to brighten things up those 125 shades of missing tonality simply get disperesed throughout the image. You are still missing that many tones, just averaged out over the whole tone range.

But underexpose with 16 bit and now when you slide levels to fill in the highlights there are plenty of tones to fill in all the tones across the image. But once everything looks good and you convert to 8bit, you still have all those tones in the 256 tonal range.

....I'm probably making thins more muddy, aren't I?


5DmkII, 5DmkIII, 5DS R, 15mm, 16-35 f/2.8 II L, 100 Macro f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, 580EX II, 580EX, 550EX
http://www.pixelcraftp​hoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Nov 26, 2008 14:48 |  #7

martinsmith,

Saving a jpeg does loose quality, you are right. But doing it once at maximum quality (or near to it) will not be noticeable.

Just don't keep opening them, tinkering and resaving. That can quickly affect the quality. Make sure you are finished with them completely before you save.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,488 posts
Likes: 202
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Nov 26, 2008 16:20 |  #8

Good explanation, Dermit.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
51,009 posts
Likes: 368
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 26, 2008 18:06 |  #9

Q10 JPG is plenty, TIFF isn't necessary. Read the Printing FAQ.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
martinsmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: S Glos, UK
     
Nov 30, 2008 10:51 |  #10

Converted them in bridge from RAW to Jpeg using sRGB but it's made them about 1.5Mb as opposed to 5-8Mb in Adobe 1998.

This cannot be right?


[SIZE=1]ms-imaging (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Nov 30, 2008 12:27 as a reply to  @ martinsmith's post |  #11

Why do you say that? Saving at top quality with the EXIF intact it sounds reasonable to me.

If you want them smaller, then you will need to strip the EXIF data and drop the quality setting.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jim ­ M
Goldmember
1,656 posts
Likes: 38
Joined Aug 2006
     
Nov 30, 2008 14:08 |  #12

martinsmith wrote in post #6784688 (external link)
Converted them in bridge from RAW to Jpeg using sRGB but it's made them about 1.5Mb as opposed to 5-8Mb in Adobe 1998.

This cannot be right?

That seems kind of small to me. Mine usually come out in the 3-6 Mb range. Are you saving them in maximum quality JPEG?

I recently converted a bunch that came out in the 1.5 Mb range and I discovered I had inadvertently set my quality to less than the max.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
51,009 posts
Likes: 368
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 30, 2008 17:31 |  #13

Color profile makes at most a 10% difference to the size of the file.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Dec 01, 2008 01:03 |  #14

I'm with Tim on this. Maybe different size / quality?


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
martinsmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
680 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: S Glos, UK
     
Dec 02, 2008 05:17 |  #15

Same size (10-12) & quality, but some of the pics come out at 1.5mb.

Surely anything over 7x5 will look awful at this size.


[SIZE=1]ms-imaging (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,854 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tiff Conversion in Camera Raw
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Eila
933 guests, 206 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.