Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question,
so please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my
life, from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old
SLR. Then I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a
beginner. I have a liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For
about three years I have happily shot away and built up a collection in
this format. Recently I discovered that this format is prone to
progressive quality loss over successive saves. One or two of my images
show this, as they have been extensively worked on. I just love fiddling
with them on the computer.
Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
doing anything else with them?
Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1190145524.566348@ftpsrv1...
> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question, so
> please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my life,
> from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old SLR. Then
> I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a beginner. I have a
> liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For about three years I
> have happily shot away and built up a collection in this format. Recently
> I discovered that this format is prone to progressive quality loss over
> successive saves. One or two of my images show this, as they have been
> extensively worked on. I just love fiddling with them on the computer.
>
> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
> doing anything else with them?
>
> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.
Changing to any other format from jpeg is a totally pointless exercise until
after you have made changes. If you take the files into your image editing
tool and then once you make any changes saving as tiff would be fine, beter
still would be to save in the native lossless format of your image tool if
it has one.
Pete D wrote:
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1190145524.566348@ftpsrv1...
>> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question, so
>> please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my life,
>> from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old SLR. Then
>> I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a beginner. I have a
>> liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For about three years I
>> have happily shot away and built up a collection in this format. Recently
>> I discovered that this format is prone to progressive quality loss over
>> successive saves. One or two of my images show this, as they have been
>> extensively worked on. I just love fiddling with them on the computer.
>>
>> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
>> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
>> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
>> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
>> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
>> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
>> doing anything else with them?
>>
>> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
>> --
>> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
>> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
>> compulsive computer fiddler.
>
> Changing to any other format from jpeg is a totally pointless exercise until
> after you have made changes. If you take the files into your image editing
> tool and then once you make any changes saving as tiff would be fine, beter
> still would be to save in the native lossless format of your image tool if
> it has one.
>
>
Thank you for helping. My image editing software doesn't have its own
"native" format, so would I be right in assuming that I should work with
the images in the original jpg format, and then save them as tiff,
especially if there is a chance that I may want to do further work with
them at some time? Thanks for your patience with this beginner.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
> >
> > Changing to any other format from jpeg is a totally pointless exercise until
> > after you have made changes. If you take the files into your image editing
> > tool and then once you make any changes saving as tiff would be fine, beter
> > still would be to save in the native lossless format of your image tool if
> > it has one.
> >
> >
> Thank you for helping. My image editing software doesn't have its own
> "native" format, so would I be right in assuming that I should work with
> the images in the original jpg format, and then save them as tiff,
> especially if there is a chance that I may want to do further work with
> them at some time? Thanks for your patience with this beginner.
>
The other obvious thing ( assuming you're not already doing it ) is to
only play with copies of the original..
When I want to work on my files, I always make a copy and save it for this
purpose. The original is archived for later use so it never is effected by
any changes I may make to it. The issue you have noted occurs when you save
the file. When you save it over and over, many times, it can be seen later.
So, you may want to work on a file until you are done then save it. If you
want to work on it several different ways, do the edits you want then save
that file before the varied edits of the last edit. This way you will reduce
the effect of and quality loss (it actually is pretty small).
Converting to a TIFF is, of course another way to save your files. I would
try that method to see if it suits you.
Good Luck with it, Peter, talk to you soon,
Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company
"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1190145524.566348@ftpsrv1...
> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question, so
> please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my life,
> from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old SLR. Then
> I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a beginner. I have a
> liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For about three years I
> have happily shot away and built up a collection in this format. Recently
> I discovered that this format is prone to progressive quality loss over
> successive saves. One or two of my images show this, as they have been
> extensively worked on. I just love fiddling with them on the computer.
>
> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
> doing anything else with them?
>
> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:03:55 +1200, Peter in New Zealand
<peterbalplug@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
>Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question,
>so please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my
>life, from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old
>SLR. Then I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a
>beginner. I have a liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For
>about three years I have happily shot away and built up a collection in
>this format. Recently I discovered that this format is prone to
>progressive quality loss over successive saves. One or two of my images
>show this, as they have been extensively worked on. I just love fiddling
>with them on the computer.
>
>Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
>better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
>of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
>afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
>software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
>the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
>doing anything else with them?
>
>Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
That is the workflow I would use - convert the JPG to TIF, and then do
all of the processing on the TIFs. Since the original JPGs are in
essence your negatives, I recommend storing them in a separate folder
in the project folder to prevent you from editing them by mistake.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:03:55 +1200, Peter in New Zealand wrote:
> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question,
> so please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my
> life, from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old
> SLR. Then I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a
> beginner. I have a liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For
> about three years I have happily shot away and built up a collection in
> this format. Recently I discovered that this format is prone to
> progressive quality loss over successive saves. One or two of my images
> show this, as they have been extensively worked on. I just love fiddling
> with them on the computer.
>
> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
> doing anything else with them?
Sure that will help. So will always doing editing from a system copy of
the original.
BTW - one fairly inexpensive way to get a camera that shoots raw is the
Kodak online store - look for a refurb P series. Got my P850 last fall for
$250 including the printer dock.
>
> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
ray wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:03:55 +1200, Peter in New Zealand wrote:
>
>> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question,
>> so please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my
>> life, from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old
>> SLR. Then I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a
>> beginner. I have a liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For
>> about three years I have happily shot away and built up a collection in
>> this format. Recently I discovered that this format is prone to
>> progressive quality loss over successive saves. One or two of my images
>> show this, as they have been extensively worked on. I just love fiddling
>> with them on the computer.
>>
>> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
>> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
>> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
>> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
>> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
>> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
>> doing anything else with them?
>
> Sure that will help. So will always doing editing from a system copy of
> the original.
>
> BTW - one fairly inexpensive way to get a camera that shoots raw is the
> Kodak online store - look for a refurb P series. Got my P850 last fall for
> $250 including the printer dock.
>
>
>> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
>
Thanks heaps to you all for taking the time and trouble to offer your
thoughts. As an old film photographer I kind of "identify" with the idea
of the original jpgs being kept untouched as the "negatives". The
software I use very easily bulk converts to tif, leaving the originals
untouched. In this forum of obviously knowledgable people I hesitate to
mention it, but it is Ashampoo Photo Commander 5, and for anything it
can't do for me, (which isn't often), I fall back onto an old version of
Photo Studio. I have been a bit overwhelmed with all the issues of file
format, digital zoom versus optical zoom (I know digital zoom is not
always good). I appreciate the courtesy and friendly help offered here
(a refreshing change after the odd group I have been in over the past
ten years), and I will continue to lurk. I am sure I will pick up
valuable tips and ideas from the posters. Thank you all again.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
On Sep 18, 4:03 pm, Peter in New Zealand
<peterbalp...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question,
> so please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my
> life, from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old
> SLR. Then I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a
> beginner. I have a liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For
> about three years I have happily shot away and built up a collection in
> this format. Recently I discovered that this format is prone to
> progressive quality loss over successive saves. One or two of my images
> show this, as they have been extensively worked on. I just love fiddling
> with them on the computer.
>
> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
> doing anything else with them?
>
> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.
Don't worry too much about the jpg format. Lots and lots of
professionals use it and it is the universal format for getting
something professionally printed. Here are a few suggestions and
thoughts.
First, set your quality to maximum in your software so you don't keep
recompressing everything.
2, keep your originals separate from your working files -- that's
standard no matter what workflow you're using.
C, stop taking pictures upside down just because your one the wrong
side of the globe ;-)
iv, you should be able to pick up a photo editor like Gimp for next to
nothing (okay, Gimp IS nothing) and use that. Then store in Gimp's
format. Photoshop Elements is also reasonable, about US$90.
Just because you open something, say for printing, doesn't mean you
have to save it again if you haven't made any changes.
With RAW, disk space does become an issue. I've shot about 3,400
pictures in the last month and will shot that many more in the next
month. Yes, disk space becomes an issue. Time also becomes an issue.
Yes, in many ways RAW is better, but it isn't a cure-all and it comes
with a price. But jpg isn't perfect either and that, too, comes with
a price.
On Sep 18, 9:46 pm, Peter in New Zealand
<peterbalp...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalp...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:1190145524.566348@ftpsrv1...
> >> Hello. I am going to ask what is probably an incredibly basic question, so
> >> please be gentle with me. I have been keen on photography all my life,
> >> from my first Kodak Box Brownie in 1952, through to my grand old SLR. Then
> >> I discovered digital, with which I am still very much a beginner. I have a
> >> liffle Fuji FinePix A340 that only saves in JPG. For about three years I
> >> have happily shot away and built up a collection in this format. Recently
> >> I discovered that this format is prone to progressive quality loss over
> >> successive saves. One or two of my images show this, as they have been
> >> extensively worked on. I just love fiddling with them on the computer.
Never save back on top of your original file and you can't go wrong.
>
> >> Trying to research this issue I came to the conclusion that TIF might be
> >> better for storage. Drive space is not an issue for me, so thre's plenty
> >> of room for them. The thing is, my camera only produces JPGs. I can't
> >> afford to replace it with one that has the TIF option. However I do have
> >> software that will batch convert image formats. So will it help if I get
> >> the JPG images off the camera and immediately convert them to TIF before
> >> doing anything else with them?
>
> >> Grateful thanks for any advice you can offer this old fella.
> >> --
> >> Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
> >> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> >> compulsive computer fiddler.
>
> > Changing to any other format from jpeg is a totally pointless exercise until
> > after you have made changes. If you take the files into your image editing
> > tool and then once you make any changes saving as tiff would be fine, beter
> > still would be to save in the native lossless format of your image tool if
> > it has one.
>
> Thank you for helping. My image editing software doesn't have its own
> "native" format, so would I be right in assuming that I should work with
> the images in the original jpg format, and then save them as tiff,
> especially if there is a chance that I may want to do further work with
> them at some time? Thanks for your patience with this beginner.
Yes. That is a sensible way to procede. There is nothing at much wrong
with high quality JPEG image files as long as you do not repeatedly
open them make a global change and resave as JPEG.
You should treat the original JPEG images that come off the camera
like you would film negatives.
Only ever work on a copy and never save back on top of the original
image.
It is pointless batch converting JPEGs into TIFFs for the sake of it.
All the information that is available about the image is inside the
JPEG file and converting to a TIFF just crystallises any systematic
errors present in the particular JPEG decoder you used and requires
between 6 and 20x more disk space to no useful purpose.
Best format question 
Linear Mode
