how to convert jpeg to tiff?

[gez]

Thank you all so much guys!!!
i was reading 39mb as if it were smaller.... I know what a numpty.
sorted now.
Thanks again,
this is once again the site to be
gez

[acherontia]

Diversifying-

Generally speaking if you're entering comps you should, ideally, start off with RAW and move on to TIFF for further work.

You should only then save as a JPG. The same goes for stock site work. The reason (good) comps want Tiffs or RAW is to check what post processing you've done to the image you've submitted. They're basically checking how good you are without the post processing.

If you only have a JPG and convert to TIFF it may not be acceptable by some competitions.
More importantly - every time you re save a JPG you are losing informationas it is a 'lossy' file - as was said previously. It 'compresses' each time you work on it and resave and deteriorates each time it's worked on and saved.
You can resize in TIFF first - I usually use the pixel dimensions and get a feel for the file size as Pressld does and there are numerous ways of doing this. I find that the subsequent JPG doesn't vary crucially from the TIFF.
As Pressld2 quite rightly says very much depends on the intensity and variation of colour and detail of an image as far as its subsequent size. If you work with images a lot you'll find that it will start to get easier and easier as far as guess work goes.
Advice for comps - shoot in RAW if possible/work in TIFF and submit in JPG!

Acher

[gez]

Thanks Archer.
the comp in mind wants tiffs. Ive yet to use raw for a few reasons 1st never had the programme to open, ( have now)
& the 2nd strange reason, when looking through mags on reasons to use raw they always show a very poor photo & then go on to say now you can do this & that to them etc. But if i were to take a pic as poor as the ones they show in the first place i would delete it simple as that.!
Iunderstand there reason behind this i think. they are saying that even if you take photos as bad as these then you can still make them good?, I really feel this makes for sloppy photo taken in the 1st place,
Im now starting to i think get to a much better level so will be goiung ove to raw v soon. Im more of a photo taker with a very good eye but the teccy stuff is way beond me so far. But i know a great site where the people who post there are second to none in there skills, helpfulness & overall knowlege, o yer im on it now
gez

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by gez

Thanks Archer.
the comp in mind wants tiffs. Ive yet to use raw for a few reasons 1st never had the programme to open, ( have now)
& the 2nd strange reason, when looking through mags on reasons to use raw they always show a very poor photo & then go on to say now you can do this & that to them etc. But if i were to take a pic as poor as the ones they show in the first place i would delete it simple as that.!
Iunderstand there reason behind this i think. they are saying that even if you take photos as bad as these then you can still make them good?, I really feel this makes for sloppy photo taken in the 1st place,
Im now starting to i think get to a much better level so will be goiung ove to raw v soon. Im more of a photo taker with a very good eye but the teccy stuff is way beond me so far. But i know a great site where the people who post there are second to none in there skills, helpfulness & overall knowlege, o yer im on it now
gez

That's a good attitude to have. If you enjoy taking wildlife images what would you rather do ..... ?

1 Be out and about appreciating and enjoying nature
or
2 Spend hours in front of a pooter trying to recover something that probably isn't worth saving anyways?

Bit of a no brainer for me!! LOL LOL
Post Processing is a necessary evil and it's good to learn all the ins and outs and techniques for more 'arty' stuff but PP sharpening in photo shop (as opposed to a little in RAW) always seems to be obvious to me.

Acher

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by gez

Ive yet to use raw for a few reasons 1st never had the programme to open, ( have now)
& the 2nd strange reason, when looking through mags on reasons to use raw they always show a very poor photo & then go on to say now you can do this & that to them etc. But if i were to take a pic as poor as the ones they show in the first place i would delete it simple as that.!

Remember that all cameras capture an image in raw form, and either convert it within the camera to jpeg and save it as such, or simply save the raw data for conversion on the computer.

Jim

[John D]

Originally Posted by gez

Thanks Archer.
the comp in mind wants tiffs. Ive yet to use raw for a few reasons 1st never had the programme to open, ( have now)
& the 2nd strange reason, when looking through mags on reasons to use raw they always show a very poor photo & then go on to say now you can do this & that to them etc. But if i were to take a pic as poor as the ones they show in the first place i would delete it simple as that.!
Iunderstand there reason behind this i think. they are saying that even if you take photos as bad as these then you can still make them good?, I really feel this makes for sloppy photo taken in the 1st place,
Im now starting to i think get to a much better level so will be goiung ove to raw v soon. Im more of a photo taker with a very good eye but the teccy stuff is way beond me so far. But i know a great site where the people who post there are second to none in there skills, helpfulness & overall knowlege, o yer im on it now
gez

Like many it appears you have a misconception of the use of 'raw'. The purpose of using 'raw' is to improve even more what is a 'well taken shot' in the first place. RAW contrary to what some people think will not make a 'poor image' a 'good one'. Basically what 'raw' does is allow more time and greater flexibility using a computer and associated software than the ' internal camera processing' can carry out in the very short time it takes to get a shot.
Why do most professionals and many amatuer photographers prefer the use of 'raw'? Certainly not because they have plenty time to sit at a computer but to maximise and get as near to the perfect image that is their initial aim.
In nature photography in particular, where there is sometimes only a split second or a few seconds at most to get that illusive shot, the more flexibility that one has to obtain a good image the better, 'raw' adds to the flexibility and is therefore worth consideration.
John D

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by John D

Like many it appears you have a misconception of the use of 'raw'. The purpose of using 'raw' is to improve even more what is a 'well taken shot' in the first place. RAW contrary to what some people think will not make a 'poor image' a 'good one'. Basically what 'raw' does is allow more time and greater flexibility using a computer and associated software than the ' internal camera processing' can carry out in the very short time it takes to get a shot.
Why do most professionals and many amatuer photographers prefer the use of 'raw'? Certainly not because they have plenty time to sit at a computer but to maximise and get as near to the perfect image that is their initial aim.
In nature photography in particular, where there is sometimes only a split second or a few seconds at most to get that illusive shot, the more flexibility that one has to obtain a good image the better, 'raw' adds to the flexibility and is therefore worth consideration.
John D

I agree! My personal aim at the moment is to take photographs that only need some work doing at the RAW stage as far as submissions are concerned.
But for printing out - now that's a different ball game and one I'm no expert in - as yet LOL LOL

Acher

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by acherontia

But for printing out - now that's a different ball game and one I'm no expert in - as yet.

Printing is a 40 gallon drum of worms!

My printing was revolutionised when I got a continuous inking system (C.I.S.) for my Epson dye injet printer, so I wasn't frustrated by most of the ink in an expensive cartridge being wasted in cleaning cycles. But the main improvement has been by my 'grasping the expensive nettle' and buying printer profiling hardware (Xrite ColorMunki), to enable me to acurately reproduce in print what I see on the screen.

Jim
Jim

[gez]

thanks all.
now printing wow thats another ball game. i have no prob with 6x4 of the kids etc . But a A4 off my best wildlife just wastes my ink,
This is also something i need to look into soon. cheers gez

[col188]

LZW is a lossless compression for Tiffs, saves about a third in file size.

Working/processing in Tiff avoids artifact generation, that you get with processing Jpegs.
Col