If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Appearance of the TIFF v. RAW
"Panno Zhai" wrote:
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. You *cannot* view a "RAW" image! Your conclusion is not valid. The RAW file is sensor data. It is *not* an image. The data *must* be converted to some standard image format for viewing. Hence you can convert it to TIFF with one program, and to JPEG with another, and then compare those two. But neither of them is more or less than the other a represention of the RAW data as such. Any differences are the result of using different conversions to different formats. If you have a third conversion (for example a thumbnail generated in the camera and embedded into the RAW file) it is *not* any different than the TIFF or the JPEG in not being a direct "view" of the RAW data. It too is just a product of a different conversion program. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D50, is it even worth it? | sgtdisturbed | Digital Photography | 65 | April 18th 06 07:42 AM |
"Raw" file issues? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 100 | May 28th 05 05:44 PM |
Nikon Coolscan V ED JPG Compression Quality / or TIFF | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 13 | February 2nd 05 06:02 PM |
Tool for converting 12-bit TIFF images to 16-bit TIFF-images? | Peter Frank | Digital Photography | 23 | December 13th 04 02:41 AM |
Canon's FileViewerUtility exporting 16-bit TIFF from CRW very dark | Mitch Alsup | Digital Photography | 3 | December 4th 04 03:50 PM |