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
|
|||
|
|||
RAW vs TIFF
Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files.
Is one significantly better than the other? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The TIFF can be looked at by any picture editing program, just like JPG.
There would be very, very little difference between a low compressed JPG and a non compressed TIFF file. The RAW file is as the camera captured the light, and must be extracted and processed into a useful file type, but it gives more possibilities for the pros and those who want to fiddle a lot with every picture. /per "measekite" skrev i meddelandet .. . Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files. Is one significantly better than the other? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If your camera records an image in jpeg or tif it makes many decisions about
brightness, contrast, exposure compensation, sharpening, color balance/saturation etc. These changes to the data coming off the image sensor are immutable and irreversible. Camera designers and software engineers program very sophisticated algorithms into digital cameras to accomplish these changes. Most consumers should be happy with the results. However if you become a RAW addict like mois you will begin to consider those changes nothing less than destructive as they cannot be undone and the image is forever what was recorded on your memory card. If you learn to use a good RAW converter and non-destructive multilayer image manipulation in a program like Photoshop/Elements/Photopaint/Paintshoppro you will be able to extract more image information and do more with it. For example you can create an image optimized for the highlights, one optimized for the shadows and seamlessly combine the two. In fact for me this is probably the main advantage of shooting raw. This kind of technique tremendously extends the effective dynamic range of the imaging sensor to a point that often exceeds color negative film (I base this on a lot of comparisons I have done with my dSLR and film images shot under identical conditions using the same lenses and personally scanning the negatives). RAW converters, like the one in CS2, allow for some correction of chromatic aberration and vignetting due to lens issues. If you have a wide angle lens for your dSLR, for example anything made by Canon, the usefulness of this technique will become clear. Some of the manipulation options in RAW converters duplicate and are no more effective than performing the processes using the regular Photoshop (or whatever program you like) techniques. You have to learn what works for you. Clearly in order to use RAW data properly you have to acquire a basic set of somewhat high end photo software skills and concepts. There are a lot of free and $ walkthrough demos available to jumpstart the process on the web and on sale as instructional DVDs. Outside of a few high end "zlr" cameras you will get the most from shooting raw with a dSLR. I have a Sony828, an amazing "zlr"machine that I use very often, but in truth there is not much to be gained from shooting raw with this beast as opposed to minimizing what it does to jpegs in terms of saturation and sharpening. Under those conditions I am generally very happy with the images coming from this camera. Also it takes about 45 seconds and 20mbs of storage space for the 828 to process and record a raw image. I also use a D70. IMHOP it is pointless to shoot anything but RAW with the D70 (or any dSLR). As a jpeg/tif camera dSLRS are IMHOP a complete waste, heavy and ponderous and will not produce images technically better than cameras that are much smaller, lighter and easier to use. As a RAW camera the dSLR is one of the most sophisticated imaging devices ever handed to an unappreciative consumer. So amazing that I hardly feel guilty for nearly totally abandoning film . . . unlike my wife who constantly asks me what I plan to do with all those cameras I never use! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
measekite wrote:
Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files. Is one significantly better than the other? Apart from the advantages the others have mentioned, Raw files are smaller (typically LOTS smaller) than TIFF files. So you should get more on the memory card, they may write to the card faster, etc. (If you intend to put your images into a photo-editor, it is hard to think why TIFF should exist on the camera). -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
per skrev:
The TIFF can be looked at by any picture editing program, just like JPG. There would be very, very little difference between a low compressed JPG and a non compressed TIFF file. You're right. But there would be considerably more differnce between a JPG file that had been tweaked with, and saved, five times in a row, and a TIFF file that has been modified and saved five consecutive times. Thus, there is very little reason fo favour TIPP over JPG if one doesnt intend to modify the image. If one does, OTOH, TIFF has clear advantages - despite being a whole lot larger. Jan B=F6hme |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jan Böhme enlightened everyone with this thoughtful response:
per skrev: The TIFF can be looked at by any picture editing program, just like JPG. There would be very, very little difference between a low compressed JPG and a non compressed TIFF file. You're right. But there would be considerably more differnce between a JPG file that had been tweaked with, and saved, five times in a row, and a TIFF file that has been modified and saved five consecutive times. Thus, there is very little reason fo favour TIPP over JPG if one doesnt intend to modify the image. If one does, OTOH, TIFF has clear advantages - despite being a whole lot larger. The key here is that if one wants to minimize cumulative damage with JPEG, simply refrain from multiple edit-resave- edit-resave cycles. I shoot in JPEG "fine" because I don't think I am nearly sophisticated enough to get any advantage out of RAW, even though my Nikon 5700 supports NEF. My 5700 also supports TIFF, but as you observe, file sizes are huge as EXIF can only be included with uncompressed TIFF. I save my unedited camera files in a separate folder under the folder the finished pictures will go into. If a need arises to do a substantial re-edit, I will always go back to the original. However, if the re-edit is minor, I will sometimes edit the finished JPEG but then always re-save it with less compression than it was originally saved with. I have found this to provide adequate image quality for my needs. -- ATM, aka Jerry |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files.
RAW files usually have a higher bit depth. For example, on many DSLRs the RAW data is 12-bits per pixel. This allows for smoother tonality. TIFF files can also contain the same 12-bit data as RAW files (possibly stored as 16-bit data), but often they simply contain uncompressed 8-bit data (therefore there are no JPEG compression artifacts to contend with). Is one significantly better than the other? A 12-bit file is significantly better than an 8-bit file. -- Witold |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
webwald wrote:
Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files. [] Is one significantly better than the other? A 12-bit file is significantly better than an 8-bit file. But remember that the 8-bit data is gamma-corrected, and so has the same dynamic range as the 12-bit un-gamma-corrected data. It is less accurate in the brightness levels for highlight values (near the top end of the 0..4095 range of the 12-bit data). David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I'm curious as to how a typical computer/monitor effectively displays a
RAW image if it contains 12 bits/channel of data. Aren't most desktops set to display 8 bits/channel only? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Terence wrote:
I'm curious as to how a typical computer/monitor effectively displays a RAW image if it contains 12 bits/channel of data. Aren't most desktops set to display 8 bits/channel only? The 12-bit linear encoded RAW data is typically converted to a gamma-corrected (non-linear) 8-bit format for display, or for storage in e.g JPEG files or printing. David |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"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 |
BMP to TIFF or TIFF to BMP- any loss? | Jenna Topping | Digital Photography | 5 | January 23rd 05 01:18 AM |
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 |