Neare
Well-known
Last night I had a revalation, why on earth do I bother scanning to TIF's? They take up huge amounts of space and the only thing I scan for is web viewing.
So, is there any reason for me to scan to TIF's if all I do is save them as jpg's with max 900px wide? Or should I just scan straight to jpgs from now on?
So, is there any reason for me to scan to TIF's if all I do is save them as jpg's with max 900px wide? Or should I just scan straight to jpgs from now on?
Field
Well-known
Yes... if the scanning software you use is native to TIFF then scan to TIFF. You can down the DPI to make the files smaller.
For example if it is native to the program it could be something like...
100dpi, roughly 8x10 size, 16 bit grayscale Tiff. The files will be 1.3mb.
Also if you want to convert even smaller it is better to use a batch converter post-scan. Scanning software takes forever to scan and convert at the same time.
For example if it is native to the program it could be something like...
100dpi, roughly 8x10 size, 16 bit grayscale Tiff. The files will be 1.3mb.
Also if you want to convert even smaller it is better to use a batch converter post-scan. Scanning software takes forever to scan and convert at the same time.
Steve M.
Veteran
Keep in mind that jpeg's are a lossy format. Meaning, every time you open the file to edit, it throws away some of the data when saved. TIFF's don't.
Store your files on an aux HD, and back those up on another HD.
Store your files on an aux HD, and back those up on another HD.
Brian Puccio
Well-known
If you want to use TIFF (for the lossless reasons) mentioned above, look into LZW compression. As compared to an uncompressed TIFF, there's significant savings, if space if your only concern.
(Also, space is cheap these days. Even with the disaster and purchase limits on hard drives.)
(Also, space is cheap these days. Even with the disaster and purchase limits on hard drives.)
Bob Michaels
nobody special
If the only reason you scan is to have a 900 pixel wide JPG, then by all means scan to a small JPG.There is no need to capture and then throw away about 97% of the data.
Personally I scan to 4800 dpi 16 bit TIFF files. But I use those to make the best prints possible and a JPG is just an afterthought.
Personally I scan to 4800 dpi 16 bit TIFF files. But I use those to make the best prints possible and a JPG is just an afterthought.
Neare
Well-known
Thanks everyone. I understand that TIF's are lossless but I'm just wondering if my use for scans advocates using them. Have you guys noticed any 'great' difference in printing a scan from a TIF instead of a JPG, A4 size?
ChrisN
Striving
Depends what you want to do with the scans.
If you want to be able to print large high quality prints from every scan, without rescanning the neg, then scan at best quality and save full-sized tiffs.
I've given up doing this to save on file size. I now only scan and save jpegs for viewing on the screen (so 1500 pixels wide is fine). I make prints in the darkroom, so the scan is only for the Lightroom catalog and to help me select what I want to print.
If I really need a large high quality scan I can alsways scan it again, carefully and at the highest quality settings.
If you want to be able to print large high quality prints from every scan, without rescanning the neg, then scan at best quality and save full-sized tiffs.
I've given up doing this to save on file size. I now only scan and save jpegs for viewing on the screen (so 1500 pixels wide is fine). I make prints in the darkroom, so the scan is only for the Lightroom catalog and to help me select what I want to print.
If I really need a large high quality scan I can alsways scan it again, carefully and at the highest quality settings.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Yes, I see a real difference in printing from a TIF instead of a JPG. Most important is that a TIF can be a 16bit file while a JPG is always an 8 bit file.