Tiff vs Jpeg

Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to tiff
or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Regards To all

Monty

In .uk,
Monty scribed:
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to
tiff or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Regards To all

Monty

None, if all you do is look at your images on a monitor. It's the equivalent
of looking at analogue negatives, as RAW files are the digital negative
equivalent.
Perhaps you might want to read a short 4-page pdf primer on this subject
written by Bruce Fraser?

http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...rawcapture.pdf

hth

Kind regards
Nigel

Thanks for the info Nigel.


Regards

Monty

"nv" wrote in message
.uk...
In .uk,
Monty scribed:
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to
tiff or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Regards To all

Monty

None, if all you do is look at your images on a monitor. It's the
equivalent
of looking at analogue negatives, as RAW files are the digital negative
equivalent.
Perhaps you might want to read a short 4-page pdf primer on this subject
written by Bruce Fraser?

http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...rawcapture.pdf

hth

Kind regards
Nigel

"Monty" wrote:
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to tiff
or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Converting RAW to TIFF won't change the quality, but depending
on the RAW format (i.e., which camera model) will have a more or
less significant change in file size, requiring a much larger TIFF file
to hold the same data as a RAW file.

Converting to JPEG will lose significant data in the image. The
effect that has varies though, because if you don't try to change
things like the color balance or brightness and contrast, and if you
view the image on a typical monitor, the process of viewing itself
discards just about exactly the same data and you won't see much
difference between formats.

If you edit the image though, the JPEG version doesn't have all
of the original data and can't produce the same results that
editing a RAW file would. Typical results, for example, would
be posterization of areas on the JPEG file that can be correctly
adjusted with a RAW file. The JPEG might have fewer than 75
brightness levels per f/stop range, while a RAW file may have up
to 2048 levels (for example in the highlights). Adding a little
brightness to a RAW format image can retain detail, while doing
the same to a JPEG will almost certainly lose detail.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Monty" wrote in message
.uk...
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to
tiff or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Regards To all

Monty


Generally speaking for simply viewing or printing to a reasonable size then
there's not much difference, but if you plan to manipulate the images, ie
sharpening, then you are best keeping as much information in the image as
possible, and minimising artefacts, until you are ready for the completed
image.

TIFF will store more information than a compressed JPEG, but the
disadvantage is memory space needed to store the images.
You could compromise by setting the JPEG to minimum compression and seeing
if that's good enough for you.

Monty wrote:
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to tiff
or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Regards To all

Monty


If you plan to do any advanced post-processing, I believe that TIFF will
allow you to work with transparent sections, while jpeg will not.

Jan

In article , Monty
wrote:

Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to tiff
or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Before transmitting an image to the lab to be printed, I save it as a
TIFF file. The quality of the prints seems to be much better,
especially with large sizes.

According to nv :
In .uk,
Monty scribed:
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to
tiff or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

[ ... ]

None, if all you do is look at your images on a monitor. It's the equivalent
of looking at analogue negatives, as RAW files are the digital negative
equivalent.

With the exception of what happens if you intend to zoom into
fine detail on your monitor. Then a TIFF is far better than a JPEG, and
a RAW keeps more range of brightness, allowing you to recover more
detail from shadows if you need to do so.

Where JPEG is really terrible is on a two color (e.g. B&W) photo
or scan of a line drawing with lots of fine detail (such as an exploded
parts diagram for some piece of equipment which you intend to attempt to
repair. JPEGs of that can lose both fine detail form the drawing
itself, and legibility in the tiny text which can accompany the drawing.

The typical TIFF has no compression, so it is painfully larger
than a JPEG, but compression can work with a TIFF, which makes the pain
a lot less.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

If you want to work further on the converted image (in PhotoShop etc.), it
is better to convert initially to TIFF - 16 bit. Only when you have
completely finished (including any re-size and sharpening) should you save
as 8 bit JPEG to get the file size down.

Mike Bernstein

"Monty" wrote in message
.uk...
Can some one please tell me if there is any advantage converting RAW to
tiff or RAW to jpeg. Any quality difference.

Regards To all

Monty

In message ,
Bill wrote:

Of course, it should go without saying that the original RAW file should
be kept as a "digital negative" in the event you wish to change the
viewed file or if you want to print a photo.

RAW conversion is still in the dark ages, as well, IMO. You may have
opportunities to make better images from them in the future. The
shadows are basically trashed by current RAW converters.
--


John P Sheehy