Okay, I need to make sure I get this.  My usual workflow is to shoot in JPG + RAW.  Right now RAW is my backup in case I really mess something up, so I process my JPG.  (I know, I know, someday I will just commit to working with my RAW files, but one step at a time...)  Once downloaded, I open my JPG and save it immediately to a working TIFF file.  Then I process my TIFF file in Elements and save it as a final copy.  I then crop and save out the TIFF to 250ppi JPGs in whatever size I'm going to print.  I'm wondering if I'm doing too much work, sooo...

Is JPG only lossy at the time of the save?  In other words, other than the potential of an autosave occuring mid-edit, if you only have a couple of quick edits to do (crop or rotate, sat boost and USM) is there any reason not to just process the JPG and then save it out to a final TIFF when I'm done.  Are TIFFs somehow inherently better to work with or is it just that they are lossless files for resaving? 

Next, when I save out to a final TIFF, I usually save as 300dpi - does it matter what image size I save at???  In other words, if I save my final as a 300dpi 4x6, and later decide I want to create a 16x20, 250dpi, JPG file for printing out of it, is is a problem to boost the size back up or should I have saved the original TIFF as large as I'll ever consider printing it?  (Which would be a massive TIFF file and a nightmare to work with!)  All the pixel data is there regardless of the size, right?  So should it matter what size I'm saving as, as long as my dpi is high enough and I'm saving as a TIFF? 

I hope you're able to follow my questions.  I appreciate any clarity you can provide on the subject!  Thanks!

So many questions.. Hmmm how to answer..

1st... Get more hard drive space... next take a look at lightroom I never touch a jpeg anymore except for when giving them to a customer. If I have to leave lightroom to do serious cloning or the like then I'll save the file from raw to tiff and work on it in PS then back into LR with the file. All files stay as raw and I don't keep any doubles (jpegs) anymore. (saves space)

As for the rest, from what I read online after you save a jpeg 4-5 times you can start to see degradation of the quality. I'm not that good so I can't swear to that. I do have a large number of jpegs on my system that I have for 4x6 photogreeting cards and I'll open them in PS, print them and close them with out saving them. As far as I know this will not affect their quailty.

Tiffs can be opened a thousand times and no loss of quality. If you save it at a smaller size do not resample it because if you do resample it will be throwing out bits to make it smaller. Then when you want to interpolate it larger it (PS) will have to guess about putting those dots back in. (never a good option)...

If storage is the issue then burn all raw files to a DVD (good ones and not compusa brand) and create a good filing system for keeping track of them. (should be doing this anyway, don't we all?) :-)

In the end have more hard drive space than you will ever think you need and you will almost have enough...

If I got any of the above info wrong I'm sure someone will be sure to jump right in and correct me.

Jeff Folger

Salem MA

www.vistaphotos.net

www.vistaphotos.net/blog

978-578-5562

Never be afraid to try something new.    
     ......Remember, amateurs built the ark.    
               .......Professionals built the Titanic.   

wayupnorth:

Okay, I need to make sure I get this.  My usual workflow is to shoot in JPG + RAW.  Right now RAW is my backup in case I really mess something up, so I process my JPG.  (I know, I know, someday I will just commit to working with my RAW files, but one step at a time...)  Once downloaded, I open my JPG and save it immediately to a working TIFF file.  Then I process my TIFF file in Elements and save it as a final copy.  I then crop and save out the TIFF to 250ppi JPGs in whatever size I'm going to print.  I'm wondering if I'm doing too much work, sooo...

Ok, first thing - no reason to save to 250ppi if you are printing photos.  Just save to the correct aspect ratio, but don't change the ppi.  Let your printer do any resampling.  One reason, lets say you are using mpix and they like 250ppi, you may not be hurting anything - but the question still comes up that they may have better resampling software than you.  Or, worse, they may be reprocessing even though you are at the same resolution as they are anyway.  No sense in risking an extra resizing.  Just send them the correct aspect ratio with as many pixels as possible. 

Is JPG only lossy at the time of the save?  In other words, other than the potential of an autosave occuring mid-edit, if you only have a couple of quick edits to do (crop or rotate, sat boost and USM) is there any reason not to just process the JPG and then save it out to a final TIFF when I'm done.  Are TIFFs somehow inherently better to work with or is it just that they are lossless files for resaving?

You are more or less correct here.  JPGs are only lossy at save and there is no reason to do the TIFF save you do at the beginning.  Work with the jpg as you are doing now, and save ONCE when you are done.  Also, as long as you don't re-open, you can save as many times as you want while working on a jpg and it is not getting more lossy each time.

For instance, you are working on a file and you get to a certain point and think, "I'd hate to lose all this work."  So you save.  You continue working and later you think, "I've done a lot more work, I'd hate to lose it."  You save again.  You have NOT made a more lossy save this time.  You can do that indefinitely without decreasing the quality.

Now if you work on a file and get to a point and think, "I'd hate to lose all this work."  Then you save and do something else.  Later you reload the jpg and do some more work and save - NOW you have added a generation of lossiness to the file.  You have to save, close, reopen and save again to stack losses.  As long as the file is in memory, you aren't compounding losses when you save. 

Next, when I save out to a final TIFF, I usually save as 300dpi - does it matter what image size I save at???  In other words, if I save my final as a 300dpi 4x6, and later decide I want to create a 16x20, 250dpi, JPG file for printing out of it, is is a problem to boost the size back up or should I have saved the original TIFF as large as I'll ever consider printing it?  (Which would be a massive TIFF file and a nightmare to work with!)  All the pixel data is there regardless of the size, right?  So should it matter what size I'm saving as, as long as my dpi is high enough and I'm saving as a TIFF?

Yes, it matters what size you save at if you are specifying a dpi.  Generally speaking - don't specify a ppi/dpi.  For printing pictures someplace like Mpix, it is unneccessary and creates potential for decreasing the quality of your image.  Save every pixel you started with, except those you must crop to get the correct aspect ratio.

Basically, you are doing most of this right, but confusing yourself with ppi/dpi.  You are not alone. 

Here are some links that may be helpful.

http://www.fotofinish.com/resources/centers/photo/resolution.htm

http://forums.mpix.com/thread/283957.aspx
 

You've gotten a ton of great info.  One more word... Tiff's can support 16-bit files.  So, if you shoot RAW or TIF and then save as a jpg, you lose data.  Shooting jpg and saving as a tif obviously doesn't add anything - but in reverse, with a 16-bit file, you lose data.

Bite the bullet, girl!  Start using those RAW files!  Use one or the other when shooting (switch as much as you like), but, come on... be decisive!  

First, let me say, you guys are AWESOME for taking the time to type out such thorough and involved answers to all my questions.  I know your time is valuable and I really appreciate it. :)  I can feel the fog starting to lift, but my brain is a little fuzzy lately so sometimes it takes me a little longer... I like to understand what I'm doing, not just do the right thing without knowing why.  Tom, that was a great tutorial by fotofinish - halfway through it, I started having flashbacks to trying to comprehend this subject a couple of years ago when I needed a new scanner.  As I recall, after a lot of research, my peabrain finally frizzled and I wound up tossing my research in favor of a $20 scanner at a yard sale.   Do you ever have topics that simply continue to elude you for no discernable reason?  I'm ready to try to understand again, though...so here are a few more pointed questions. 

Jeff, the good news is that I did buy a big ole' Seagate external hard drive a while back.  I will look into Lightroom.  I've read a little about some concerns that it wasn't in beta very long and therefore may be a big "green" until it's been out for a while.  Sounds like you love it, though, and if I'm going to switch to something different than Elements, I should consider it before I plunk down my money on full blown Photoshop.

So, Tom, you said "no reason to save to 250ppi if you are printing photos.  Just save to the correct aspect ratio, but don't change the ppi.  Let your printer do any resampling.  One reason, lets say you are using mpix and they like 250ppi, you may not be hurting anything - but the question still comes up that they may have better resampling software than you.  Or, worse, they may be reprocessing even though you are at the same resolution as they are anyway.  No sense in risking an extra resizing.  Just send them the correct aspect ratio with as many pixels as possible."

When I look at the image size of a brand new JPG, my image size says pixel dimensions 2336w x 3504h, then document size says 32.444 inches width x 48.667 height, resolution 72 pixels/inch.  Checked are scale styles, contrain proportions and resample image (set on bicubic).  So, for example, say I'm going to crop a little because I managed to get a little of the edge of the backdrop in the pic or whatever.  When I go to crop, it asks me width, height and resolution.  This is where I usually specify 300 pixels/inch.  I've never even thought of leaving it blank, but when I just tried it, Elements changed all the image size dimensions as you would expect, and gave me a new pixels/inch of 505.333.  Are you saying just leave that as it is and don't touch it and don't worry about document size or pixel dimensions as long as they are in the aspect ratio I want?  Should I be turning off resampling on my end?  Sorry, I hope I'm not coming across as someone COMPLETELY without a clue - I really am trying to understand.

Then, Tom said, "Also, as long as you don't re-open, you can save as many times as you want while working on a jpg and it is not getting more lossy each time."  Really???   I didn't realize that you can save and save and save in JPG and as long as you don't close and reopen the file, you haven't lost any data.  Am I understanding this correctly?  This is why I have been saving as a TIFF first before doing anything else - I'm petrified that I'll lose pixels.

To Mike, I know I should bite the bullet and do RAW.  Making decisions is not one of my stronger suits - ask my husband.   My learning curve is so spiked right now that I just can't bear to add to it.  It was a big step for me just to add RAW to my capture.  My vision was that when I have a little time, I will start playing with RAW and at least this way I'll have some images to play with so I can see the difference it makes to capture and work with one over the other.

Thanks again!  As always, I am in awe of the amount of knowledge available here just for the asking. :)

EDIT:
this thread showed as without reply to me for some reason. So below typed is basically what guys above said.
bad mpix, bad!

I think you doing it to complex rather than simple.
My conclusion is - the jpeg you shoot is compressed, that is once. work on tiff and save - no loss of data, good. then you save your tiff into final print jpeg, that is second strike.
If you'd - shoot raw = no compression, open up raw into tiff, work on it (save work tiff copy) and save for final print jpeg, it's only once.
At least I do it that way. Of course, you can shoot raw - open in PS as jpeg, work on it - nothing happens to it so far - save a final print jpeg, it's again only once. Downside is you don't have that working tiff saved, so if you need to redo the jpeg that was supposed be final, you have to either compress in second time or start again from raw.
Last wokflow I described cluters you hd with only one raw and only one final jpeg for each picture, something like 10-12mb per image total.
Having raw+work copy tiff+final jpeg can go easily to 50mb each.
Given those are averages, with 10,000 shots a year you'd need minimal of 150GB storage/year for raw+final jpeg and 500GB/year for the other option.
Drives are cheap enough to not let this bother you. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I shoot only raw and those serve as my backup/starting file.
Finished version in jpeg is finished version, done. Saved full size, no matter if I print 4x5 of it or 16x20.

Tomas

I was just wondering why you are shooting raw files for a backup?  I started out shooting JPEGs but after i seen the difference in quality in the RAW files I now shoot strictly RAW.  Shooting JPEGs then saving them as TIFFs is really odd because your shooting in a lower format and saving it in a higher format.  I suggest learn how to process your RAW files and your work flow will be a lot easier and you can use your JPEGs as a backup.

wayupnorth:

Do you ever have topics that simply continue to elude you for no discernable reason?  I'm ready to try to understand again, though...so here are a few more pointed questions.

Yes, there are certain aspects of transistors that eluded me in college, and to be honest Lorentz transformations and ionic and covalent bonding still give me fits.   

I will look into Lightroom.  I've read a little about some concerns that it wasn't in beta very long and therefore may be a big "green" until it's been out for a while.  Sounds like you love it, though, and if I'm going to switch to something different than Elements, I should consider it before I plunk down my money on full blown Photoshop.

Someone else who is more familiar with Lightroom will have to answer this, but I'm not sure Lightroom is a stepping stone from Elements to Photoshop.  I think it is a heavy featured RAW file processor and file organizer.  If I am correct about that, you'll still need Elements or Photoshop. 

When I look at the image size of a brand new JPG, my image size says pixel dimensions 2336w x 3504h, then document size says 32.444 inches width x 48.667 height, resolution 72 pixels/inch.  Checked are scale styles, contrain proportions and resample image (set on bicubic).  So, for example, say I'm going to crop a little because I managed to get a little of the edge of the backdrop in the pic or whatever.  When I go to crop, it asks me width, height and resolution.  This is where I usually specify 300 pixels/inch.  I've never even thought of leaving it blank, but when I just tried it, Elements changed all the image size dimensions as you would expect, and gave me a new pixels/inch of 505.333.  Are you saying just leave that as it is and don't touch it and don't worry about document size or pixel dimensions as long as they are in the aspect ratio I want?  Should I be turning off resampling on my end?  Sorry, I hope I'm not coming across as someone COMPLETELY without a clue - I really am trying to understand.

You are not coming across completely clueless and this is a constantly recurring question here on the forum.  Photoshop is a bit unclear in this area.  I THINK you are correct, however this help screen in Elements 3.0 (which is the only PS product I have) would indicate otherwise.  I think it is wrong though.  I think if you do as you said, you won't resample.  HOWEVER, there is a way to be SURE you aren't resampling, I'll show it to you after the help screen here...

The way to BE SURE you are not resampling is to use the Marquee tool and then crop.

Here is a very easy to follow print screen of a 5 x 7 rectangular marquee selection, (setting the Mode to Fixed Aspect Ratio, NOT Size) and then go to the menu bar and choose Image | Crop.

This definitely does not resample.

Then, Tom said, "Also, as long as you don't re-open, you can save as many times as you want while working on a jpg and it is not getting more lossy each time."  Really???   I didn't realize that you can save and save and save in JPG and as long as you don't close and reopen the file, you haven't lost any data.  Am I understanding this correctly?  This is why I have been saving as a TIFF first before doing anything else - I'm petrified that I'll lose pixels.

I am 99% sure of this, but I will double check and try to find some sources for you on that.  Here's why I believe it.  When you load the image (jpg, tiff, whatever) into your editing program, it is an RGB image (I won't get into other options, for most people this is the case.)  When you save it, you compress the RGB bitmap that is in your computer's RAM to a lossy, compressed jpg file.  Now if you do not close that file, the RGB bitmap in memory is still uncompressed.  If you do more work, and save again, the program (Photoshop, whatever) takes the uncompressed RGB bitmap in your computer's RAM and compresses it and saves it.  

Now if you were to save a jpg, then close the file, you lose the uncompressed version in RAM and you will have to open a compressed version next time.  Then when you save that compressed version, you are compressing it AGAIN.  That DOES stack your losses. 

To Mike, I know I should bite the bullet and do RAW.  Making decisions is not one of my stronger suits - ask my husband.   My learning curve is so spiked right now that I just can't bear to add to it.  It was a big step for me just to add RAW to my capture.  My vision was that when I have a little time, I will start playing with RAW and at least this way I'll have some images to play with so I can see the difference it makes to capture and work with one over the other.

Don't feel rushed to RAW.  I took a few months before I went to RAW and to be honest, it is great what you can do with the images and some of the shots that can be easily rescued, but it DOES add to your workflow.  I'm a hobbyist so it is no big deal for me to take the extra time with an image.  And I'm sure pros have ways to rapidly convert large batches of files and get them the way they want, but I tend to have to tweak w/b and such for each image setting.  I can paste the settings to all the other pictures in that particular setting, but it can take a lot more time.

That said, eventually you want to experiment with and consider RAW shooting.  But don't feel at all rushed.

tommas4:

If you'd - shoot raw = no compression, open up raw into tiff, work on it (save work tiff copy) and save for final print jpeg, it's only once.

The only problem with this as I see it Tomas - the TIFF files are HUGE.  We are talking 20Mb+ in many cases.   If an image is important to me, I may do it this way, but I honestly think it is impossible to see the difference in the first couple of saves in JPG at high quality.

At least I do it that way. Of course, you can shoot raw - open in PS as jpeg, work on it - nothing happens to it so far - save a final print jpeg, it's again only once. Downside is you don't have that working tiff saved, so if you need to redo the jpeg that was supposed be final, you have to either compress in second time or start again from raw.

Actually, I'd suggest another workflow if you are truly concerned about not damaging the image.  If filesize is no matter to you, the shoot RAW, save to TIFF.  FROM THEN ON, save in the IMAGE EDITOR'S format.  For instance, both PhotoShop and Paint Shop Pro have their own formats (which use TIFF as the image part anyway) that save the layer information for you as well.  If you save to TIFF, you irretrievably lose the ability to work on, remove or alter those layers in the future.  If you save to the image editors native format, you still have those layers when you reopen later... 

Drives are cheap enough to not let this bother you. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I shoot only raw and those serve as my backup/starting file.
Finished version in jpeg is finished version, done. Saved full size, no matter if I print 4x5 of it or 16x20.

Of course you aren't wrong.  But the only question I would have is whether there is really any quality difference that is discernable with the human eye.  You are definitely taking the "no chances" approach and that is great.  But I do think that shooting Jpeg and saving one more time after you edit is still a very high quality, acceptable workflow.  I'm sure Steve Ruby will chime in here soon!   

wayupnorth:

Then, Tom said, "Also, as long as you don't re-open, you can save as many times as you want while working on a jpg and it is not getting more lossy each time."  Really???   I didn't realize that you can save and save and save in JPG and as long as you don't close and reopen the file, you haven't lost any data.  Am I understanding this correctly?  This is why I have been saving as a TIFF first before doing anything else - I'm petrified that I'll lose pixels.

I checked this at cnews.corel.com in the corel.PaintShopProX newsgroup and confirmed that it is in fact true.  Just wanted to follow up on that... 

Thanks again Tom!  I've gain a TON of insight from your detailed and informative posts!  By the way, I hope your doggie is feeling better. :)