Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

When exporting a RAW file to TIFF, should the TIFF look exactly like
the RAW file, in terms of color, clarity, sharpness, etc.? It seems my
TIFFs are a little dull, somewhat "hazy" I guess you would say.
Curves, color adjustments, background highlights, and sharpening bring
them almost back around, but it's something I've always wondered about.
No, this isn't a monitor issue as I'm looknig at them on the same
monitor - RAW file - very crisp, TIFF file - not so much!

B

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

RAW file contains untouched data. It contains just one red, green, or
blue value at each pixel location. Differrent digital camera has
different RAW file generator engine.
The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative
in film photography.

When converting into TIFF format, digital camera adjust the color,
contrast and other irreversible adjustment. So this is why TIFF format
look better than RAW format.

--
http://www.deshot.com
http://www.groupvita.com

wrote:
When exporting a RAW file to TIFF, should the TIFF look exactly like
the RAW file, in terms of color, clarity, sharpness, etc.? It seems my
TIFFs are a little dull, somewhat "hazy" I guess you would say.
Curves, color adjustments, background highlights, and sharpening bring
them almost back around, but it's something I've always wondered about.
No, this isn't a monitor issue as I'm looknig at them on the same
monitor - RAW file - very crisp, TIFF file - not so much!

B

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

lorento wrote:
RAW file contains untouched data. It contains just one red, green, or
blue value at each pixel location. Differrent digital camera has
different RAW file generator engine.
The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative
in film photography.

When converting into TIFF format, digital camera adjust the color,
contrast and other irreversible adjustment. So this is why TIFF format
look better than RAW format.

I don't think you understood what I was saying - the processed RAW file
looks better than the pre-processed TIFF.

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

wrote:
When exporting a RAW file to TIFF, should the TIFF look exactly like
the RAW file, in terms of color, clarity, sharpness, etc.?

Not necessarily ... what program are you using for RAW conversion and
viewing? What program for viewing the TIFFs? Some of the RAW
converters show quickie previews for example, and some display previews
with a bit of sharpening, which may or may not be applied to the
converted tiff (you can typically set the amount and whether or not the
sharpening is actually applied).

Also some of the RAW converters don't seem to use the monitor profile
the same was as, say, Photoshop does. And if you view the TIFFs in a
non-color managed program then they will likely look different than in
a RAW converter program.

These are the kinds of things that can cause differences in the way the
RAW looks vs the TIFF.

Bill

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

Bill Hilton wrote:
wrote:
When exporting a RAW file to TIFF, should the TIFF look exactly like
the RAW file, in terms of color, clarity, sharpness, etc.?

Not necessarily ... what program are you using for RAW conversion and
viewing? What program for viewing the TIFFs? Some of the RAW
converters show quickie previews for example, and some display previews
with a bit of sharpening, which may or may not be applied to the
converted tiff (you can typically set the amount and whether or not the
sharpening is actually applied).

Thanks, Bill. I am using RSP 2006 for RAW - CS2 for TIFF. FWIW, I do
have "Apply Sharpening" checked in the Batch Convert tab in RSP 2006...


Also some of the RAW converters don't seem to use the monitor profile
the same was as, say, Photoshop does. And if you view the TIFFs in a
non-color managed program then they will likely look different than in
a RAW converter program.

Is this the case with RSP / CS2?

These are the kinds of things that can cause differences in the way the
RAW looks vs the TIFF.

OK. Any suggestions?

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

Paul Saunders wrote:
wrote:

When exporting a RAW file to TIFF, should the TIFF look exactly like
the RAW file, in terms of color, clarity, sharpness, etc.?

Actually, you can't "see" a RAW file, it's just data. It has to be
converted to something else before you can see it. When you look at RAW
files on your hard drive or in an image browser, you're probably looking at
the jpeg thumbnails that the camera saved at the same time, or a jpeg
embedded with the RAW file. When you look at a preview of a RAW file, the
preview is an on-the-fly conversion. Adobe Bridge actually creates its own
thumbnails direct from the RAW files, but it's a slow process so it shows
the jpegs initially while it does the conversions. If you look carefully
you can see them changing colour as they are processed.

The jpeg thumbnails that are saved with the RAW files use whatever camera
settings were in force when you took the photo (same as if you saved a jpeg
instead of a RAW file) but your RAW converter probably uses different
settings.

It seems
my TIFFs are a little dull, somewhat "hazy" I guess you would say.
Curves, color adjustments, background highlights, and sharpening bring
them almost back around, but it's something I've always wondered
about. No, this isn't a monitor issue as I'm looknig at them on the
same monitor - RAW file - very crisp, TIFF file - not so much!

Most in-camera processing tends to boost contrast, saturation and sharpness
for a more punchy image straight out of the camera, which jpeg shooters
like. This is what you're looking at when you view the thumbnails. The low
contrast, low saturation RAW file is much better for post processing,
although you can boost these as you convert them if you want, depending on
which RAW converter you're using. For example, the RAW converter in Canon's
Zoom Browser can be set to the same settings as your camera, so therefore
*should* give the same results as the camera (same as the thumbnail), but if
you use a different converter the results are likely to be different.

For example, if I use Adobe's "Daylight" white balance setting to convert a
300D photo, it uses a Temperature of 5500 and a Tint of +10. But if I
choose the "As Shot" setting (the 300D's daylight setting) it uses a
Temperature of 5650 and a Tint of +4. So they don't even agree on what
colour daylight is!

Adobe's daylight is slightly more red/magenta than the 300D's daylight, so
it looks slightly warmer. Sometimes I prefer one, sometimes the other, it
depends on the photo. It's only a small difference, but it's worth being
aware of this if you're very picky about colour accuracy.

Great info, Paul. As I posted previously, I am using RSP 2006 - CS2.
Anything I should be aware of in terms of color management from app to
app? Thanks again for the post...

B

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:

You should be working on these types of corrections in the raw conversion
process and not. afterwards. What tools are you using? Are both color
managed applications using the same monitor profile?

That's exactly my point - I follow a pretty tight workflow in RSP 2006,
and my shots typically look great - very sharp, vibrant and clear.
When converted to TIFF for JPEG uploads, they typically look a little
dull, kind of flat, and not much like the RAW thumbnail in RSP. As to
your question about the monitor profile being shared by CS2 and RSP, I
fully admit I'm not sure. How would I check this?

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
 

Here is the comparison of the picture, saved in JPEG, TIFF and RAW, and
then manipulated to "pull" out the details:

http://afanas.ru/video/oblaki.jpg

As you can see, RAW is better than JPEG or TIFF.