JPG to TIF: Any benefit?

[Chataignier]

Avoid the problem, keep the original RAW files and use exported jpegs only where needed for convenience.

[ScottO]

Avoid the problem, keep the original RAW files and use exported jpegs only where needed for convenience.

Indeed. And since I began using RAW many years ago, I have never deleted a RAW file, as I suspect noone else has either once they learned of RAW benefits. However, as the original post states, the images in question are from before my "discovery" of RAW. So the question remains, if one wants to post process a JPEG, is there any possible benefit to converting that JPEG to TIFF first. The answer so far in this thread is no. I am tending to agree, but, when I consider that Topaz Labs has a JPEGtoRAW product, it makes me wonder. Why would they develop such a product, and why would people buy it and use it. It converts JPEGs to DNGs, and the size is essentially the same as a TIFF, unlike true RAW images which a much smaller than TIFFs.

[Manfred M]

I am tending to agree, but, when I consider that Topaz Labs has a JPEGtoRAW product, it makes me wonder. Why would they develop such a product, and why would people buy it and use it. It converts JPEGs to DNGs, and the size is essentially the same as a TIFF, unlike true RAW images which a much smaller than TIFFs.

I have yet to see a compelling answer to your question out of Topaz Labs, but on the other hand, if they feel that there is a demand for the product and they can make money on it, why not sell it. There are many photographic products out there that I scratch my head about a lot (in fact' I've even bought a few). That's why these companies have marketing departments...

I work with JPEGs all the time and as long as I am gentle with them, they can give completely acceptable results.

[DanK]

Re the Topaz software: it doesn't just re-save the JPEG as a TIFF, which is what you asked about. It applies algorithms derived from machine learning to attempt to undo compression artifacts, etc--that is, in essence, to impute the data that has been lost in conversion to JPEG.

I have no experience with it, as I virtually never shoot JPEG, but you can find quite a number of reviews online.

[xpatUSA]

Indeed. And since I began using [raw] many years ago, I have never deleted a [raw] file, as I suspect no one else has either once they learned of [raw] benefits.

Scott,

Off-topic, but when you put "raw" in caps, it can be taken as only referring to files of type RAW and not for example type NEF or CR2 or RW2 or X3F, etc ... hence my edits to your quote. In other words, not all raw files are RAW! Pardon my pedantry ...

Pardon my concern too that no-one should delete raws (apart from culls) with the hidden implication that each raw is a masterpiece than can benefit from re-visitation or future technology.

I realize the above sounds a bit pompous! Perhaps there are "shades" of raw at which they are kept or not.

[xpatUSA]

ThreadKiller Ted strikes again LOL ...

[Cantab]

I keep all of my photos, including those edited in Photoshop, in my Lightroom catalog, and if I need a JPEG, I export one from Lightroom. If I'm just going to post it, i use a Lightroom plug-in that creates the JPEG in a temporary folder, exports it, and then deletes it from my computer. There is no reason to save it. I save one on my computer only if there is a particular need, e.g., emailing a file to someone.

Dan, I've come to this thread a bit late in the day but I'm curious about the Lightroom plug-in you use to create a temporary JPEG. It sounds like a minor but nonetheless perhaps labour saving device.

[DanK]

Dan, I've come to this thread a bit late in the day but I'm curious about the Lightroom plug-in you use to create a temporary JPEG. It sounds like a minor but nonetheless perhaps labour saving device.

Bruce,

They're among Jeffrey Friedl's many Lightroom plugins. Go to this URL: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies. I use the ones for Smugmug and Flickr.

Dan

[ScottO]

... when you put "raw" in caps, it can be taken as only referring to files of type RAW and not for example type NEF or CR2 or RW2 or X3F, etc ... hence my edits to your quote. In other words, not all raw files are RAW! Pardon my pedantry ...

Ah, I see that there are actually a variety of .raw file types. Your point makes sense.

Pardon my concern too that no-one should delete raws (apart from culls) with the hidden implication that each raw is a masterpiece than can benefit from re-visitation or future technology.

I realize the above sounds a bit pompous! Perhaps there are "shades" of raw at which they are kept or not.

My thought was once you learn the benefits of raw images, if you want to keep an image, you'd keep the raw version.

ThreadKiller Ted strikes again LOL ...

Not at all. I just haven't visited the forum in several days. :-)

[xpatUSA]

Ah, I see that there are actually a variety of .raw file types.

Yes, but only if you leave out the dot and just use the simple adjective "raw".

For example, .jpg is a file format; so is .jpeg; so is .jfif; but they are all JPEGs i.e. files of type JPEG and should all look the same on your monitor. Equally, .tif or .tiff known as TIFFs.

In these days of typing with two thumbs and the terrible inconvenience of having to use two strokes to type a capital letter these fine distinctions are disappearing fast, along with the hyphen.

My thought was once you learn the benefits of raw images, if you want to keep an image, you'd keep the raw version.

Agreed.

And my Sigma converter has an option to save my adjustments in that raw version and they re-appear next time I open it. Other converters have "side-car" files to the same effect.

[DanK]

Part of the confusion is that JPEG and TIFF are acronyms, while "raw" is just an adjective meaning "unprocessed" or "uncooked." So, there is no reason to capitalize RAW. Unfortunately, many people and organizations (including Canon, for example) ignore this simple grammatical point and capitalize RAW for no reason.

Things like .jpg are not actually file type names. Windows, unlike the Mac OS, places the information about file type in a 3- or 4-digit string called a file extension. That's what .jpg is. It tells the OS and software what type of file it should try to open. That's why if you change the extension--say, change junk.jpg to junk.gpj--the software can't open it, even though the file has not in any other way been modified. There are often multiple extensions for a single file type. For example, Windows uses .txt, .ini, and .bat for simple text files.