Can Using Tiff Instead of Jpg Files Overcome Resolution Issues?

David B

Newcomer
Pro Member
Pro Member
Followers
0
Following
0
Joined
Oct 3, 2022
Posts
16
Likes Received
8
Name
David Blacker
Hi all. I have been pondering whether to buy the R5 or the R6, and after having been loaned an R6 and several lenses for a few days by my local Canon dealer I've pretty much decided on the R6. The only niggle is that 20mp sensor. Most of my work goes in magazines and websites and resolution isn't an issue, but there may be the occasional shoot that needs to be blown up. What I want to know is this: a 60mb RAW file off a 5DMkIV gives Tiff and Jpg files of approximately 80mb and 20mb respectively. It's more or less the same off an EOS R. On the R6, the RAW file is about 24mb, and Tiff and Jpg are 50mb and 10mb respectively. So if I were to take large prints off the R6's Tiff files, will this make up for the relatively lower resolution RAW files? TIA.

#R6 #resolutiontalk #TiffFiles
 
Before moving to Canon mirrorless I spent 6 years shooting wildlife with a pair of 20MP Nikon D500s. I own an R6 as well as an R5 and that are my primary shooters.

File size does not equal resolution. A fully processed TIFF file will have no better resolution than a JPEG of the same dimensions, it will just be bigger (and provide a better platform for future edits, which is why I say "fully processed"). Want bigger then you'll want to turn to one of the resize programs. I personally used Topaz Gigapixel AI. Is it good? I have taken a 4000x2250px image shot with an Autel EVO drone (original model) that was cropped down to 1600px on the long end and produced a high quality 30"x45" canvas print for a customer.

The megapixel discussion is one I refuse to enter because of the AI I've used to avoid ever need a camera that shoots more than 20-something MPs. My reason for the R5 and R7 is primarily because I need crop resolution and not full image resolution. If I crop down to 20MP's I'm thrilled.
 
That's an interesting take, Jake.
You feel that the Gigapixel is a good-enough substitute for higher Megapixelage?

I've had pleasant results with Topaz's upscaling on portraits (was pretty cool to take some 2 megapixel shots from 1997 and upscale them to normal resolutions), but anything it's not specifically trained on (like macro in general or insects in particular) it doesn't do a very good job.
 
That's an interesting take, Jake.
You feel that the Gigapixel is a good-enough substitute for higher Megapixelage?

I've had pleasant results with Topaz's upscaling on portraits (was pretty cool to take some 2 megapixel shots from 1997 and upscale them to normal resolutions), but anything it's not specifically trained on (like macro in general or insects in particular) it doesn't do a very good job.
I feel that if you are satisfied with the detail you can capture in a lower megapixel image then buying a more expensive camera just for the MP's in completely unnecessary.

As a wildlife photographer I'm used to the phrase "pixels per bird" when speaking of resolution. Are the pixels per bird sufficient to render all the necessary details in that bird? A 24MP full frame camera is not going to give you the same number of pixels per bird as a 24MP cropped sensor camera with the same lens because you've got added reach depending on the crop factor. You're also dealing with other factors in a cropped sensor that impact image quality.

But, if you are able to render an image of sufficient detail and image quality on a sensor of any size that you could present it on Social Media at 1920px on the long side with no visible anomalies then I would posit that capturing that same image with a more densely packed sensor will likely not improve the quality to the extent that you would notice a difference between the higher MP image and an equally sized one using AI software to upsize it.

In other words, it will never be a substitute in the field when taking the photo from a pixels-per-subject/need-to-render-small-details point of view. But if you took the same well-exposed image with an R6 and an R5 and I up-sized the R6 to 45MP's and then generated both social-media ready images as well as large prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Could you pixel peep in Photoshop and see it? It would depend on the subject, but sure, I'm thinking you would. But not so much in 95% of real world applications of most photographs - and nearly any social media context.
 
Ok, so you're not talking about using Gigapixel to take a 20MP photo and blow it up to billboard size.
But then I'm wondering, what's the point of upscaling if you've already captured all the detail you wanted for an instagram post? Does it create that coveted crispness that some of the better photographers' work seems to possess?
 
Before moving to Canon mirrorless I spent 6 years shooting wildlife with a pair of 20MP Nikon D500s. I own an R6 as well as an R5 and that are my primary shooters.

File size does not equal resolution. A fully processed TIFF file will have no better resolution than a JPEG of the same dimensions, it will just be bigger (and provide a better platform for future edits, which is why I say "fully processed"). Want bigger then you'll want to turn to one of the resize programs. I personally used Topaz Gigapixel AI. Is it good? I have taken a 4000x2250px image shot with an Autel EVO drone (original model) that was cropped down to 1600px on the long end and produced a high quality 30"x45" canvas print for a customer.

The megapixel discussion is one I refuse to enter because of the AI I've used to avoid ever need a camera that shoots more than 20-something MPs. My reason for the R5 and R7 is primarily because I need crop resolution and not full image resolution. If I crop down to 20MP's I'm thrilled.
Thanks for clarifying that, Jake. So you're saying there's no point at all in saving an image as a Tiff if all processing is complete? A Jpg file sent to the printer will be no worse than the same image in Tiff format?

Personally, I've had 18"x22" prints made for framing off an 18mp Canon 600D (and one or two from even smaller sensors) , and they looked fine, but that was 10 years ago, and I feel large prints would be expected to have better quality today.
 
A Jpg file sent to the printer will be no worse than the same image in Tiff format?

Keep in mind, that when saving a file as JPG after any processing you do on your computer you can save it with various amounts of compression (e.g. default is usually 90%). This may affect quality. If you want the best quality possible and are starting with a TIFF file, I'd stick with the TIFF if your printer accepts that. But all this is not to say that file size per se has anything to do with quality.

P.S. Personally, I only deal with JPG files, but I do crank up the quality to max available. 12 in photoshop, 100% in other programs. Works well enough.
 
Last edited:
I save my files as a TIFF, then reduce the size and save as a .png before the jpg file last.

Paul.
 
Thanks for clarifying that, Jake. So you're saying there's no point at all in saving an image as a Tiff if all processing is complete? A Jpg file sent to the printer will be no worse than the same image in Tiff format?

Personally, I've had 18"x22" prints made for framing off an 18mp Canon 600D (and one or two from even smaller sensors) , and they looked fine, but that was 10 years ago, and I feel large prints would be expected to have better quality today.
The main thing is to understand the internal resolution of the file. You want 150-300ppi on the image you send to the printer (this measurement ONLY matters when printing, not when posting online. Whether that's JPEG or TIFF matters not. I always us Gigapixel AI to upsize to the precise print size (in inches) at a resolution over 150ppi and then save it as a JPEG to send off.
 
OK, so I just downloaded a trial version of Gigapixel AI and just ran it mostly auto on one of my 20mb jpgs off the R6, and it banged it up by 4x, changing my 300 dpi 41cmx28cm image into a 166cmx113cm at 300 dpi. Now I didn't fiddle with the face recovery and grain reduction and other controls. I do notice some odd blurring on parts of the faces, etc. I take it all of this can be sorted out by tweaking the settings? Image 1 below is he original jpg, 2 is a 100% crop from it, and 3 is the same area on the Gigapixel image, showing the odd blur.
 

Attachments

  • 064A0054.jpg
    064A0054.jpg
    686 KB · Views: 56
  • 064A0054crop.jpg
    064A0054crop.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 58
  • 064A0054-gigapixel-standard-scale-4_00xcrop.jpg
    064A0054-gigapixel-standard-scale-4_00xcrop.jpg
    474.6 KB · Views: 58

Latest reviews

  • Zoom Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
    5.00 star(s)
    Fast, sharp, and lightweight! A great lens
    This is my main workhorse of a lens and I love it. It's very light weight (only around 2.3 lbs) lens. I've been able to hand-hold it for an event...
    • Crysania
  • Canon EOS R6 Mark II
    5.00 star(s)
    Fantastic sport camera
    This camera is FANTASTIC. I'm a dog sports shooter, so very fast indoor action with a lot of obstacles to shoot in and around. This camera does a...
    • Crysania
  • Zoom Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM
    4.00 star(s)
    A good lens for what it does, with it's drawbacks
    I have had this lens since it came out and it is my lightweight go to lens for walking around in the city and using my infrared-converted camera...
    • Hali

New in the marketplace

Back
Top