 Michael D. Vanden Berg |
TIFF vs. RAW vs. JPEG I have an Olympus and can shoot in JPEG, TIFF, or RAW. For printing large photos (larger than 11x14), is it better to shoot in TIFF or RAW? Is there a quality difference between TIFF and RAW?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Tiff provides you with in-camera editing capabilities just like JPEGs (sharpness, color saturation, contrast, etc.). RAW does not. RAW relies on 100-percent editing in post softwares such as PS. If you are PS literate, and have the time to spend on each image, you will have more control over the final image by shooting RAW. If you are shooting an event, and need to prepare a lot of images quickly, I'd recommend shooting JPEG or TIFF. Note - I believe TIFFs will take up more space on your memory card.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael D. Vanden Berg |
I don't need to edit the photos in the camera, I do all my editing in PS CS. I was mainly wondering if there is a quality difference between shooting TIFF or RAW.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
Hi Michael! Both are good formats to use. As far as a quality difference, I would say no: Shooting TIFFs will fill the buffer up faster, and your card, slowing your overall shooting rate down. I use PS-CS and shoot RAW files (they are your digital negative) and turn them into TIFFs when using them for printing or the contest on this site, etc.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael D. Vanden Berg |
Good to know...TIFFs do take up a bit more space, but I have a couple gig cards so haven't had a problem with space yet. I will have to give RAW a try, I have been avoiding it thus far. thanks for the responses
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
I have been shooting with my first digital prosumer camera for only a week (sony cybershot dsc-v3). I have a 1gb memory stick and a 1gb cf card inside. Shooting on tif or raw, I can capture about a total of 80 images utilizing both memory capturing devices. btw, it is a 7.2 megapixel camera and I shoot on fine. I cannot see the difference in image quality whether it is tif or raw. However, what I have found is that I LOVE the ability to work with the raw file in pscs more so than working with a tif file. I have so much more control. Now, keep in mind, I've only been shooting in raw for 3 days! LOL But the only drawback is that it takes a bit longer to process in my camera which means I can't take another photo as quick as I would if I was shooting in Tif. BTW - I, too, turn my raw files into tif files via pscs. Hope this helps with your questions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David King |
Both TIFF and RAW can give extremely good results. But unless you are shooting B&W in a camera that will allow it (and they usually require TIFF to do it) RAW is the preferred format for several reasons (assuming you have the ability to convert them for later editing). RAW is not only a smaller (faster to write to the CF card) file, it lets you use 12 bits to capture color information instead of the 8-bit limit for TIFF in most cameras. PS will see that as 16 bits. This gives you the chance to capture subtle color nuances far better. Depending on the shot the difference can be important. It can result in less dithering and interpolation which results in smoother tones and cleaner edges. However to maximize your RAW capture quality, take the time to properly expose (use the histogram for data), white balance, etc. in the first place. Yes, you can correct for quite a bit in post processing, but if the file is correct in the first place, nearly all editing can be done in PS which is far better at it than most converters, especially those supplied by the camera manufacturer. The less processing YOU have to do to the file the better it will be. David
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael D. Vanden Berg |
thanks for the help and advice
|
|
|
|
||
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
I'm having a temporary (I hope) crisis with my CS3 extended, and until it's fixed am working in CS2 again, but was terribly dismayed to find that it wouldn't process the RAW images of my new Canon 50D, even after downloading the 3.1 RAW update. So, until it's fixed, I just started using DDP for the first time to do a batch conversion to TIFF, which I can then open in my CS2. I guess, in effect, this entirely eliminates the advantages of shooting in RAW because I get no RAW box to fiddle with before opening the pic. I've never worked in TIFF before and am intimidated. What's the advantage or disadvantage of editing directly in TIFF? Also, what actually happens to an image when you convert it from RAW to TIFF before editing and not being able to use the RAW box before opening? When I save a pic (when I could use RAW!), I usually do one 'save as' in psd and another in jpeg and keep the original RAW File. Since I'm going to save in psd anyway, should I convert it to psd before editing it, or after? Thanks for any help anyone can give!
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
There's no reason to be intimidated. A raw file needs to be converted because it's not in a universally readable format like tiff. Light hits the sensor, and that is sent as a signal to the analog/digital converter. And different cameras can have the same sensor but have different a/d converters. So Nikon's raw converter won't work for Canon's raw files. But your computer can read both tiff files coming from either camera. Working on the raw files can give you some leeway of changing things about the photo as if that's the way you took the photo. But only so much. That's illustrated by the fact that you can only change exposure on a raw file maybe plus or minus 2 f/stops. None of it is a replacement for anything that you can do when you actually take the picture. If you don't shoot various exposure changes with the camera, you can pass it on to the next step with a raw editing program, with a limited amount of capability. If you can't edit the raw file, you pass it on to the next step of editing with photoshop on a tiff file, and the limited capabilities of editing there before you have problems with things like noise and artifacts. Nothing gets away from what you do when you actually take the picture. Raw files don't save poorly taken pictures. So if you've been doing well then, then there won't be any problems with converting raw files to tiff and editing. My camera is a D60. There's nothing I can do to the camera that will make the a/d processor give me a raw file that will be better or different than when I first got the camera. But, if I were to use what's considered one of the top of the line converter programs like Phase One, perhaps I could get something like better tonal grades than I could with the converter program that came with the camera. But that doesn't change what I should do when I take the picture.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Thank you for explaining things in such patient detail! But rather confused. I searched around and found scores of articles by professionals debating back and forth on the RAW issue and also the latest (free) published figure (2006)of how many professionals actually used RAW--77%. If RAW is basically to compensate for errors that one could avoid while shooting, and if professionals are, in fact, the one group that would generally not have to compensate, why do the majority of professionals use it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I shoot large TIFF's rather than RAW (NEF) as a time saver. My Capture NX software is the only program I own that will open a large NEF file...and it takes FOREVER! My large TIFF's can be opened with a simpler program, re-sized for web use, and saved in just a few seconds. I then can open the much smaller TIFF very quickly with Capture NX for final edits. I save the edited version in my picture file and archive the original large TIFF in an external hard drive. I've compared edited versions of the two formats side by side and I can't see any difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Thanks for the info. Just visited both your and Gregory's galleries and love your bugs and Gregory's leaves! Haven't decided yet what I'll do long term, whether stick with RAW or go back to JPEG, but until my problems are solved, will have to stick with JPEG for the moment. And I'll see how it feels now going back to editing in JPEG.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Professionals shoot raw because some of it is hype, some of it is what the client ask for, some of it is what the photographer wants to do, some of it is getting all the information out of a file that a camera can give you. It's somewhat similar to the megapixel battles. Not having the latest, largest pixel amount may make a client change their minds if one comes calling. A raw file has more information than a jpeg. Many photographers swear and agree that they get better results with raw. Like better tonal grades. But you can read about Lionel Deluy in Digital Photo Magazine and he said in the article that he doesn't have to shoot raw because of a quality issue, but that he does shoot raw with jpegs in case the client ask for a raw file. And he mentions an add he did, made from a jpeg file, that was made into a billboard that took up the side of a building. And was cropped. You can go to Digital Photo Magazine's site, search for Lionel Deluy, and read the article if you'd like. From my own eyes I've seen a benefit to tiff-from-raw in things like how a tiff handles sharpening. If try your own experiment of adding a lot of sharpening to like images, one jpeg, the other tiff-raw, the tiff seems to handle excessive sharpening better. I've heard stories of jpegs being lifted from flickr and other sites, and made into poster sized adds. So maybe there's something that ad agencies have, with all their money, that they use that makes them able to do that with a web image that a desktop computer just doesn't have. So if you plan on lots of interpolation for enlargements, or lots of filters, raw may make a difference. Raw is what gives you all the information, all the potential, that a camera can give in a file and most people want it, be it because the feel it makes a difference or it's just good to have it because it's the most out of the file they can get. Any compression that happens in the jpeg version, whether it makes a difference isn't a completely solve issue.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
One more thing. That's a myth that raw is for fixing mistakes. Just like the myth is photoshop means you fixed mistakes. Because you'll find that the overwhelming majority of professionals don't approach raw that way, and they don't want approach shooting in a fix-it-later way of thinking. By the way, thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Thanks for that info on Tiff, very useful and I'll try what experiment on the jpeg and tiff-raw! I believe I read that same article--I read a LOT that night! There were many compelling arguments for not needing to use RAW. Sadly, I'm a rank amateur still prone to forgetting to change this or that setting when shooting, and sometimes not really knowing the best setting anyway, so RAW has helped me out a bit on those occasions. It also seems to help me out in exposure issues on macro flowers when a slight change in exposure will provide more detail. I appreciate your detailed explanations, breaking things down for those who need it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||