To Jpeg or not to jpeg

[Mrdavie]

Lightroom Version Number

8.3.1

Operating System

1. Windows 10

To utilize LR Classic plug-ins such as the Nik collection, the first step in editing files is to generate a pixel image for editing, typically tiff. When editing is complete, the edits are "hardwired into the tiff file. It is not uncommon for this file to be 50 MB or more. I know storage is cheap, but that's a big file. If I export this file to a full-size jpeg, the resulting file is 6.75 MB. So, why not export the tiff files and then replace them by importing the jpeg into LR?

 

[Replytoken]

To utilize LR Classic plug-ins such as the Nik collection, the first step in editing files is to generate a pixel image for editing, typically tiff. When editing is complete, the edits are "hardwired into the tiff file. It is not uncommon for this file to be 50 MB or more. I know storage is cheap, but that's a big file. If I export this file to a full-size jpeg, the resulting file is 6.75 MB. So, why not export the tiff files and then replace them by importing the jpeg into LR?

JPEG is a lossy format, and each time you save or re-save in jpeg, the image slowly degrades and artifacts will eventually appear. And in the initial conversion from raw or tiff to jpeg, a lot of data is lost. So, if you plan on possibly working on your images again in the future, you will want all of the data and as little degradation as possible. That is why folks often create jpeg files during export when the format is needed (posting on the web or sharing with others).

--Ken

 

[Mrdavie]

JPEG is a lossy format, and each time you save or re-save in jpeg, the image slowly degrades and artifacts will eventually appear. And in the initial conversion from raw or tiff to jpeg, a lot of data is lost. So, if you plan on possibly working on your images again in the future, you will want all of the data and as little degradation as possible. That is why folks often create jpeg files during export when the format is needed (posting on the web or sharing with others).

--Ken

Thanks for that info. The plan would be to either generate a lower res image for social network but more importantly make prints from the full Rez jpeg. Question is whether tif will generate better print than jpeg, say if print resolution is set to 300 dpi.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

If you create a tiff, you can use 16 bits and ProPhotoRGB colorspace. That is the best source for prints, if you make your own prints on a modern inkjet printer. Jpeg does not support 16 bits, so in that case the choice is easy. If you use an online print service you will have to send jpeg anyway. And no, dpi has nothing to do with this.

 

[Replytoken]

If you are trying to decide on the best file for printing, I would suggest that you work backwards. If you are printing at home, then as Johan said above, a 16-bit tiff file in ProPhoto is a good choice. If you are sending a file to a lab, you need to know what they will or will not accept and then work from there. Almost every commercial lab (excepting perhaps those that only work in CMYK) will accept a jpeg file in sRGB color space. Some labs will accept tiff files and some will accept files in Adobe RGB. While you can resize your image before sending it to a lab, my suggestion is to send as much resolution as you have and let their printing software do the work. The exception is if you are severely lacking in resolution. Then you could try to "uprez" the file, but YMMV as to what kind of product you will get. Finally, touching again on your storage issue, for the most part there is no reason to save the file that you send to the printer as it can be exported again from LR if necessary. Hope this helps.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

To me there are two points at which you may want to include a jpg in LR instead of a TIFF.

The first is if it's the end, the final work, and you never need a better quality, you never need to edit it, it's done. To me this is almost never, ever a good idea. While the vast majority of my images will never be touched again, never be printed, and never be reused -- I have no idea which minority might be. And honestly I think most photographers do not either - so many things happen over years and years.

The second is a bit different -- if the jpg is useful to you inside LR AND you can easily reproduce it as a TIFF. Let's say you keep the raw, and all you did in an external editor was something simple to reproduce (e.g. I do negative inversions like this). If you can redo it trivially and just need a copy in LR for reference, then just output a JPG. Only remember to redo it and get a TIFF if you need to further edit.

I guess I think of it like this -- I invest heavily in a good sensor body, even more heavily in good glass, I shoot raw to preserve as much latitude in post processing as I can, I spend (cumulatively) years practicing and reading and learning.... if it takes another $100 in disk drives to keep from compromising the quality of an image I need to keep, so what. If it's not worth that, is it really worth keeping? (I'm a huge believer that one of my worst photography sins is not culling heavily enough -- and I have a lot of company in similar sinners -- you know who you are! -- but that's a different discussion.)

 

[Mrdavie]

Thanks for the feedback. I guess the original question of whether or not to keep the large TIFF file or replace it with a JPEG is answered. 1. I do have plenty of storage space, and 2. it is laborious to produce a jpeg just to replace the TIFF because of its size. What is nice about editing in Lightroom is the changes to the image are non-destructive. However, there is so much hype to use the multitude of plug-ins to further refine the image. But they require pixel files, and the edits are destructive (that's not a good term, but I guess it is accurate). With Lightroom edits, I can save snapshots at points where I like the image. With the TIFF file, I got what I got and forgett exactly what I did when editing with the plug-in. So, if I want to make a change, I have to start over again. It is like doing a painting. Each iteration will be different. Thanks again for your responses.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

However, there is so much hype to use the multitude of plug-ins to further refine the image.

There are a lot of cool tools out there, but it is kind of like all the different lenses and filters and flashes and such for shooting -- they have their places, and sometimes you really need them, but frequently the stuff you have already in your bag works just as well if you learn to use it well.

Lightroom is already in your bag.

 

[LouieSherwin]

With The Nic Collection you also have the option to use them as Smart Filter layers in Photoshop. So rather than going straight to Nic from Lightroom first Edit in Photoshop or even better yet Edit In -> Open as Smart Object in Photoshop. Then select the Nic filter from Nic selective tool menu. If you opened as a Smart Object Nic will automatically be applied as a Smart Filter.

In this scenario you go back and edit the original raw in Camera Raw and also go back and edit the Nic effect. The cost of this convenience is larger files. I just did this on a 22MP and ended up with a 550MB tiff. So maybe its only something you want to do with your 5star images.

-louie