DennisM
Established
I’m currently scanning B&W negatives (as well as some color negs & slides) using an Epson V600 scanner with the short term goal of starting a Lightroom subscription and printing B&W images from negative scans as well as from some digital images (Fuji). My scans and digital images are saved as jpeg’s I believe. However, my understanding is that Lightroom will not work with jpeg scans but instead requires TIFF files. I learned on the internet that I can use readily available software to convert jpg’s to TIFF’s. I also understand that I can save my scans as jpg’s or TIFF’s but that TIFFS are much larger and consequently take up more space on a drive. Therefore 1). Is it better to save B&W neg scans as jpg’s or as TIFF’s? 2). Any issues converting jpg’s to TIFF’s using a program such as image.online-convert.com/convert-to-tiff? Finally, 3). Any advice before starting a Lightroom subscription? Thanks.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I always saved all my scans as TIFF. Then I import then in LR for postproduction and printing.
robert
robert
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Save your scans as tiffs. Converting a jpg to a tiff won't restore all the data that is thrown away when the jpg is created.
Dogman
Veteran
I'm not an expert and my LR is the older standalone model so keep that in mind.
It depends on what you plan to do with the final photos. If you already have a number of images saved as JPEGs, you can just export them as TIFFs in Lightroom. You won't get the same quality as having originals in TIFF but it may not be feasible to go back and rescan a huge number of photos.
It depends on what you plan to do with the final photos. If you already have a number of images saved as JPEGs, you can just export them as TIFFs in Lightroom. You won't get the same quality as having originals in TIFF but it may not be feasible to go back and rescan a huge number of photos.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I have some fairly old jpg scans in my archive that I will print occasionally, processing only mildly in LR. (These scans well pre-date my adoption of Lightroom.) Since I farm the printing out, I export the processed file as a jpg to send to the print shop. Once I moved to LR what scanning I did was in TIFF. I'd recommend you transition your scanning output to TIFF, as others have said. File size is not the issue it once was, since storage is not expensive these days.
Regarding LR's subscription service, be diligent on the Adobe site. It's sometimes tricky to navigate to the base $9.99/mo package, assuming you want to start with the base service.
Regarding LR's subscription service, be diligent on the Adobe site. It's sometimes tricky to navigate to the base $9.99/mo package, assuming you want to start with the base service.
Dwig
Well-known
Your "understanding" is incorrect.
Lr can work just fine with JPEGs. That said, you are far better off using TIFFs saved directly from your scanning software instead.
JPEGs use a lossy compression. What is lost or "damaged" by the compression can't be restored. No program can actually edit a JPEG. They have to decompress them and create a TIFF-like image for editing. If you resave as JPEG, as many apps would do by default, a new JPEG is created with even more loss of image quality. Subsequent edits would lower quality further.
Apps like LR don't actually edit the image data. Instead they store an Edit Decision List (EDL), either as a stand alone "sidecar" XML file or as embedded data in the file's header, that includes the adjustments you made to the proxy image. When reopened for subsequent edits, the EDL is applied to a new proxy and you can then add to the EDL. Only when you "export" the image out of LR to a file or pass it to another editor (e.g. PS, ...) will LR create a copy with the EDL adjustments applied. You still have the unaltered original with its EDL.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Lightroom will import raw, TIFF, JPEG, PNG, and PSD format files, and can edit any of them.
The best files to import for converting captures of B&W film are raw files if you're using a digital camera to capture the exposures, and 16-bit per component TIFF files if you're using a scanner. Yes these are the largest formats on disk, but you always want to render your photos starting with the most data. JPEG files end up being less than 40% of the original scanned data.
The best files to import for converting captures of B&W film are raw files if you're using a digital camera to capture the exposures, and 16-bit per component TIFF files if you're using a scanner. Yes these are the largest formats on disk, but you always want to render your photos starting with the most data. JPEG files end up being less than 40% of the original scanned data.
peterm1
Veteran
I use Lightroom and routinely save image files in camera as both RAW and JPG simultaneously (I no longer shoot much film, only digital, but bear with me). As I understand it there should be no difference between JPGs created in camera and JPGs created by scanners.
I can say that my Lightroom (a standalone version - 5.6 I think) works perfectly well with a range of file types - TIFF, JPG and various RAW types.
But in general, I prefer to use RAW files over JPG and do so almost exclusively (or if I did not have that option, I would use TIFF files for processing in Lightroom). The reason of course is that JPG algorithms throw away data when they are create JPG files. This is done in the interest of having smaller files, but the cost is sometimes noticeably poorer image quality - especially in the shadows and highlights but also overall. For example if I have blown highlights a RAW file will almost always allow me to pull some image back out of the blown area. While a JPG file almost never will as some, or most, or all of that data has been thrown away by the algorithm that created it. This applies to JPGs created in a camera and to JPGs created in a scanner.
These days, computer hard drive storage is cheap and I think there is no reason why I would use JPGs over TIFF or RAW files. The only reason I create both JPG and RAW simultaneously in camera is that my computer does not have the necessary CODECs for some recent RAW files from newer cameras. So they do not render under Windows so instead I use the JPG files only as a kind of thumbnail to whats in the accompanying RAW file, but its the RAW file that really interests me. Once I import these into Lightroom this is no longer a problem in any event as LR handles both file types. In fact what I normally do is to elect for Lightroom to convert any RAW files I import, into DNG files within Lightroom. This means I do not have to worry about whether they will be compatible in future as DNG is about the most universal RAW format around.
You asked about converting from JPG to TIFF. I do not think this helps you much if at all. Once a JPG has been created, some data has been lost. Converting that JPG to TIFF will not put data back into the image once it has gone.
Short answer to your question - save your scanning output as TIFF files not JPG as you will get better end results most times. Having said that sometimes the improvement is only small but it is there. The other reason is that if you save as JPG files some decisions will be made for you by the scanning software. Saving as TIFF will also buy you better flexibility in this respect too as otherwise you are more or less stuck with what the JPG algorithm has given you.
BTW I prefer my standalone LR as I am not keen to pay a monthly fee for software but then again that is me. If I were doing hundreds or thousands of files per month and doing that regularly month after month, or if I only wanted to subscribe for a couple of months to complete a scanning project maybe an subscription version would be a better value proposition for me. The other reason is that I am not sure if the latter works with plugins and I like using plugins running under LR.
I can say that my Lightroom (a standalone version - 5.6 I think) works perfectly well with a range of file types - TIFF, JPG and various RAW types.
But in general, I prefer to use RAW files over JPG and do so almost exclusively (or if I did not have that option, I would use TIFF files for processing in Lightroom). The reason of course is that JPG algorithms throw away data when they are create JPG files. This is done in the interest of having smaller files, but the cost is sometimes noticeably poorer image quality - especially in the shadows and highlights but also overall. For example if I have blown highlights a RAW file will almost always allow me to pull some image back out of the blown area. While a JPG file almost never will as some, or most, or all of that data has been thrown away by the algorithm that created it. This applies to JPGs created in a camera and to JPGs created in a scanner.
These days, computer hard drive storage is cheap and I think there is no reason why I would use JPGs over TIFF or RAW files. The only reason I create both JPG and RAW simultaneously in camera is that my computer does not have the necessary CODECs for some recent RAW files from newer cameras. So they do not render under Windows so instead I use the JPG files only as a kind of thumbnail to whats in the accompanying RAW file, but its the RAW file that really interests me. Once I import these into Lightroom this is no longer a problem in any event as LR handles both file types. In fact what I normally do is to elect for Lightroom to convert any RAW files I import, into DNG files within Lightroom. This means I do not have to worry about whether they will be compatible in future as DNG is about the most universal RAW format around.
You asked about converting from JPG to TIFF. I do not think this helps you much if at all. Once a JPG has been created, some data has been lost. Converting that JPG to TIFF will not put data back into the image once it has gone.
Short answer to your question - save your scanning output as TIFF files not JPG as you will get better end results most times. Having said that sometimes the improvement is only small but it is there. The other reason is that if you save as JPG files some decisions will be made for you by the scanning software. Saving as TIFF will also buy you better flexibility in this respect too as otherwise you are more or less stuck with what the JPG algorithm has given you.
BTW I prefer my standalone LR as I am not keen to pay a monthly fee for software but then again that is me. If I were doing hundreds or thousands of files per month and doing that regularly month after month, or if I only wanted to subscribe for a couple of months to complete a scanning project maybe an subscription version would be a better value proposition for me. The other reason is that I am not sure if the latter works with plugins and I like using plugins running under LR.
willie_901
Veteran
I use Vuescan which is one of several platforms that let you save flat TIFF files. These are often called raw files even though they are just linear (flat TIFFs).
Vuescan offers DNG output but this is not a true flat file.
If you use Epson's software I suggest using TIFFs with all rendering parameter values set to zero.
Vuescan offers DNG output but this is not a true flat file.
If you use Epson's software I suggest using TIFFs with all rendering parameter values set to zero.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've never heard the term "flat TIFF" before.
VueScan raw files are TIFF files which contain either just one image (B&W) or three images (RGB for color). What distinguishes them from regular TIFF output is that they are not gamma corrected ... they contain the as-scanned linear data instead of being gamma corrected for viewing.
When VueScan creates a DNG file, it is encapsulating their raw or TIFF output formats into the DNG container with gamma correction parameters in the metadata (per the DNG specification) to allow any fully implemented DNG raw processing engine to work with them. In DNG terms, these are RGB Serial DNG format files, according to the spec.
(Note: Not all raw processing engines that can handle DNG format can process serial DNG format files. Some have chosen not to implement this portion of the spec.)
G
DennisM
Established
A belated thank you to all who responded to my original post. Still have not acquired Lightroom SW, but now I’m better prepared to move ahead when I do acquire it. I rescanned some B&W negs as TIFFs and can see that they are significantly larger. My local Walgreens cannot print TIFFS , but their 5x7 and 8x10 prints from jpegs are surprisingly good. Thanks again for the inputs.
willie_901
Veteran
Yup: linear = flat.
These are demosaicked images where VueScan provides the demosaicking algorithms.
"The raw files are the result of the first of two steps VueScan performs: 'scanning'. The second step is "processing". These steps are described in the topic "How VueScan Works" in this User's Guide. By providing a mechanism to cleanly separate these two steps, VueScan provides great flexibility and offers options not available in most other scanner software."
I scan directly to DNG and convert them, to lossless compressed DNG upon import into Lightroom.