Re: Tiff vs Jpeg
- From: dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx (DoN. Nichols)
- Date: 3 Oct 2005 04:12:09 GMT
According to nv <notvalid@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> In news:IdP%e.119991$G8.31026@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> Monty <monty@xxxxxxxxxxx> scribed:
> > Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to
> > tiff or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.
[ ... ]
> None, if all you do is look at your images on a monitor. It's the equivalent
> of looking at analogue negatives, as RAW files are the digital negative
> equivalent.
With the exception of what happens if you intend to zoom into
fine detail on your monitor. Then a TIFF is far better than a JPEG, and
a RAW keeps more range of brightness, allowing you to recover more
detail from shadows if you need to do so.
Where JPEG is really terrible is on a two color (e.g. B&W) photo
or scan of a line drawing with lots of fine detail (such as an exploded
parts diagram for some piece of equipment which you intend to attempt to
repair. JPEGs of that can lose both fine detail form the drawing
itself, and legibility in the tiny text which can accompany the drawing.
The typical TIFF has no compression, so it is painfully larger
than a JPEG, but compression can work with a TIFF, which makes the pain
a lot less.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
.
- References:
- Tiff vs Jpeg
- From: Monty
- Re: Tiff vs Jpeg
- From: nv
- Tiff vs Jpeg
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon IS lens??
- Next by Date: Re: Pentax istDS any good???
- Previous by thread: Re: Tiff vs Jpeg
- Next by thread: Re: Tiff vs Jpeg
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
