Is it worth paying extra for TIFF scans instead of JPEG when scanning 35mm negatives?
Asked 4/9/2013
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m having 35mm C41 colour negatives developed and scanned, with no prints. The lab offers high-resolution JPEG scans or TIFF scans. TIFF costs more and produces much larger files.
I may only do light to moderate editing in Lightroom, but I’d like some flexibility if a frame needs stronger adjustments. With digital capture, RAW gives noticeably more editing latitude than JPEG, so I’m wondering how much real-world benefit TIFF scans provide over high-quality JPEG scans from film.
Does TIFF usually give meaningfully more post-processing headroom for minor to medium edits, or is the difference much smaller than RAW vs JPEG from a digital camera?
Also, if I choose TIFF, do bit depth and lab settings matter? For example, is there a meaningful advantage to 16-bit TIFF over 8-bit TIFF for scanned negatives?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
4
If the TIFF files are only 8bit and the resolution is the same then there will be very little (unless the JPEG compression is set very high). The only difference will be slight artefacts in high frequency areas and potentially lower colour resolution if chroma sub-sampling is used on the JPEGs.
Additionally if the scan resolution itself is high compared to the resolution of the image, then there will be little difference between TIFF and JPEG as they will both contain more information than the original film.
It seems to me that they're just trying to create an artificial differentiation to increase revenues. The only time I'd consider paying half again for TIFFs would be under the following conditions:
- The quality of the original negatives was very high
- The TIFF files and scanner were both more than 8 bit
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
It depends more on how the lab scans than on the file extension alone.
A TIFF can be anything from 8-bit RGB to 16-bit lossless, and some TIFFs can even contain JPEG-compressed data. So “TIFF vs JPEG” is only meaningful if the TIFFs are truly higher bit depth and less compressed.
In practice:
- If the lab’s TIFFs are only 8-bit and the scan resolution is the same, the advantage over a high-quality JPEG is usually small.
- The main JPEG downside is lossy compression: possible artifacts, especially in fine detail, and sometimes reduced color detail.
- If the TIFFs are 16-bit/lossless from a scanner capturing more than 8 bits, they can give more room for edits like curves, contrast, gamma, and highlight/shadow adjustments, with less risk of banding/posterization.
So the benefit can range from minimal to worthwhile depending on the lab’s actual workflow. It is not automatically as dramatic as RAW vs JPEG from a digital camera.
If you pay extra for TIFF, ask whether the files are 16-bit and lossless. That’s where most of the real editing advantage would come from.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can old film negatives lose sharpness over time, or is blur usually a scanning issue?
Can a 16-bit TIFF be edited like a RAW file, or does RAW still retain more information?
Is 12-bit-per-channel a sensible archival compromise for scanned 35mm negatives?
Is there a modern lossy format that preserves most RAW flexibility while saving space?
Why is white balance adjustment more accurate with RAW than with JPEG?