# Jpeg vs TIFF for editing



## NathAus (Jul 14, 2016)

Hi,

I'm wondering about editing files in Lightroom, specifically the difference(s) between jpeg and TIFF. 

To explain my question, a little background first. Here is what my workflow currently looks like:
- Use View NX 2 to convert NEFs to TIFF and import TIFFs to LR (keeping all NEFs backed up).
- Edit TIFFs.
- Once finished editing, export TIFFs as jpeg for client.

Side note: the reason I convert NEFs to TIFFs in the first step is because I have found that NEF files in LR are rendered flat and dull when imported (I know there are many discussions around this topic when I first looked into it a long time ago). Over time I have created a number of presets that I use to edit my images and these presets when used on the NEF files do not yield the same results compared to TIFF. Additionally, and quite simply, the TIFF file far closely matches when I am seeing in camera versus the NEF file, provides an easier starting point for my editing and an overall better result. 

As an experiment, I recently converted some NEFs to jpegs and imported those into LR. Applying the same presets and edits to the jpegs, I then compared the jpeg files next the edited TIFFs in LR and I could not discern any differences in color, saturation, hue, etc. Both edited files look the same. My question is however, is there a technical disadvantage to using jpegs for editing versus TIFFs that I am not seeing with the naked eye? For example, with highlights or shadow recovery capabilities, or anything else? Not withstanding the fact that the jpegs are substantially smaller in file size than TIFFs, are there reasons for/against their use in LR when compared to TIFFs?  

Second side note: I do understand that jpegs will degrade with repetitive re-saving, but I do not believe this applies since LR editing is non-destructive and is not re-saving over the original file with edits. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this assumption. 

Appreciate any input into this topic.

Thanks

NathAus


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jul 14, 2016)

It depends on the tiff. If you save a 16 bits ProPhotoRGB tiff from View NX2, then you retain most if not all the information that was in the NEF file. It that case tiff is definitely better than jpeg, because jpeg is 8 bits by definition. If your tiff is 8 bits and sRGB or AdobeRGB, then there is not that much difference with a high quality jpeg. In both cases you've already lost a lot of information.


----------



## Gnits (Jul 14, 2016)

*Raw & Tiff*

In your case, I do not understand why you convert from Nef to tiff.

I converted a 24mb Sony A7 raw file to Tiff with the following settings.




This is the best settings to conserve detail, but I have selected the Zip compression setting to minimise the size of the file.  The raw file was 24 Megabytes but the Tiff was a whopping 118 Megabytes.   The sample image I used was a landscape, below average in terms of detail, so I can expect to get larger Tiffs with more detailed images.

*Matching Raw Images to Camera Jpgs.*

The best way to get your initial view of your image to match your jpg is to select the most appropriate Camera Calibration setting on the Lr Import Dialogue (if importing raw). Refine slightly your basic settings at import to optimise the initial display.





First, make sure you are using the most recent Process (currently 2012) .... but importantly ..... select the Profile.   You will find Adobe have created a profile to match the standard Jpg settings in most brands of cameras (eg Landscape, Standard, Neutral, Portrait, etc ).   I find for me (with Canon cameras) the Landscape profile works best, but ymmv.


There are some good reasons to use Tiffs at a certain stage in the process, but it is hard to beat raw plus Lr import and develop settings to provide a platform for your post processing. I understand you may have specific benefits from using View NX.  I am not qualified in any way to comment on that app.

If I am printing an image I will only use the jpg format for the final final  version, after all editing, resizing and sharpening has been applied. This may happen if I am getting someone else to print.  I normally  print myself directly from Lr  using the raw file  (or Psd version if I have had to make a round trip to Photoshop.

The key point above is that jpgs are 8 bit by definition, raw can be 14 bit or higher for medium format sensors, tiff 8 or 16 bit and Photoshop can handle even larger bit depths.   A lot can be done to improve how your initial view of the raw file matches your camera jpg, but using a jpg as the starting point for any post processing means that you are throwing away a lot of detail and dynamic range.

Apologies if I have gone on a bit, but it is hard to condense this down to a few small sentences.


----------



## NathAus (Jul 14, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> It depends on the tiff. If you save a 16 bits ProPhotoRGB tiff from View NX2, then you retain most if not all the information that was in the NEF file. It that case tiff is definitely better than jpeg, because jpeg is 8 bits by definition. If your tiff is 8 bits and sRGB or AdobeRGB, then there is not that much difference with a high quality jpeg. In both cases you've already lost a lot of information.



Johan thanks for this information. An obvious observation re the 8 bits vs 16 bits, but one I was not thinking of. I do convert to 16 bits but where do you see the option/information re color profile in View NX 2, i.e. ProPhotoRGB/sRGB or AdobeRGB? Attached is a screenshot of my conversion box.


----------



## NathAus (Jul 14, 2016)

Gnits said:


> *Raw & Tiff*
> 
> In your case, I do not understand why you convert from Nef to tiff.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply. I convert from NEF to TIFF because I find that NEFs do not match the initial view of my image. I understand there are camera calibration and profiles that can be applied upon import but I have tested these and they still don't do a good enough job. I have read that it may be a Nikon (NEF) proprietary issue with LR profiles because I have not heard of Canon users reporting problems, and in your example you are working with Sony files. 

Good point re "using a jpg as the starting point for any post processing means that you are throwing away a lot of detail and dynamic range." This is one area I was concerned about.


----------



## NathAus (Jul 15, 2016)

Further to this, I did some experimenting. Using View NX 2, I converted a few NEF files to jpeg (highest quality) and imported them into Lightroom. I used the same editing presets that I use on the TIFF versions and compared the jpeg and TIFFs side-by-side. 

You both pointed out the 8bits vs 16bits and the fact that jpeg is an inferior starting point for editing, however I'm hard-pressed to find any noticeable differences between the two, even when extremely magnified. I've attached some screenshots. I tried a number of different images, including ones with extreme highlights and shadows and I still can not see any loss of quality in the jpeg. Am I missing something? Is the loss of detail/dynamic range in the jpeg only apparent when considering print format and at large sizes? Or is it a factor when exporting the final image (as a jpeg) from LR compared to a TIFF being exported as a jpeg?


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jul 15, 2016)

You have to remember that you're looking at this on a display. That display also has its own limitations, such as the colors it can show. Maybe it's a standard consumer display with approximately sRGB color space, rather than a wide gamut AdobeRGB monitor. A 16 bits ProPhotoRGB tiff file *can* (not necessarily *does*) have much more saturated colors than any display (even that wide gamut display) can show. Convert that file to 8 bits sRGB and view it on an sRGB monitor and you see nothing. Print it on a modern inkjet printer and you do begin to see the difference.


----------



## Gnits (Jul 15, 2016)

The two key factors are....

1. What size will the final images be.  If they will be used on a blog web site or 8x10 print then you can be more relaxed.
2. How much post processing is required.  

I mainly do landscapes and I want to get the best detail and tonal range possible. This includes making the best use of shadows and highlights, applying curves for local and global contrast, using various tools to maximise the detail (local and global), sharpening to exact print dimensions, etc..  All of these processes stretch and compress the amount of depth in your image. My prints are always admired for the quality of colour and detail.....but I work with the raw pixels (that I only get one chance to capture) to get the best I can from them.

You output requirements, I am sure,  are completely different to mine. We all evolve our workflows to optimise how we can get to our own endgame.

I also agree ... display devices  can only show so much subtlety, modern Adobe rgb  compatible displays are much  better, but a good print on good paper beats all of these.


----------

