Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files.

Is one significantly better than the other?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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" <inkystinky@oem.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:FdNOe.263$MN5.72@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Anyone know the difference between RAW files and TIFF files.
>
> Is one significantly better than the other?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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 Böhme

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

> 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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On 25 Aug 2005 07:02:05 -0700, Terence <auriga_m38@yahoo.com> 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?

Many RAW converters can save data in 16 bit/channel TIFF files, and even
if the monitor can only display 8 bpc, the additional resolution is
useful when doing things like applying color corrections and lifting
details out of shadows.

-dms