Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 9, 2006, 11:00 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Actually, you just answered my question..(sorry if I had anything to do with your confusion!):-)I guess I tried to make something more complicated than it needs to be. I will just skip the tiff, and go from nef to jpeg and be happy!

Thanks again so much.

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 11:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 804
Default

I think that this is one of those issues that can kill a couple of six-packs between photographers on a warm night!

People who shoot RAW usually consider the RAW file as their "negetive." By itself, it doesn't mean much, so the RAW data have to be converted (processed) through software to come out with something that is interpreted as an image. This is not very controversial, but the pop-tabs start a-poppin' when the next phase is discussed: what format do you convert your RAW file to?

Many prefer TIFF because it supports editing in 16 bit -- which is more forgiving than 8 bit JPEG. It is also lossless, so the TIFF fans like to use this as their "Master Edit" file. They then use the TIFF Master Edit file to make copies to other, less noble, formats.

Other photographers don't see any advantage to having a TIFF ME file on the premise that JPEG is just fine most of the time, and anyone who has to edit their stuff so much that they would need the extra latitude of TIFF is just not getting the shot right in-camera and needs to work on their capture technique.

Pass me another one...

As to why the file size goes up so high from the RAW data to the TIFF file, I think that it's due to all the add-ons that go into processing the unprocessed RAW file.

Grant
granthagen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 11:57 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

granthagen wrote:
Quote:
I think that this is one of those issues that can kill a couple of six-packs between photographers on a warm night!

People who shoot RAW usually consider the RAW file as their "negetive." By itself, it doesn't mean much, so the RAW data have to be converted (processed) through software to come out with something that is interpreted as an image. This is not very controversial, but the pop-tabs start a-poppin' when the next phase is discussed: what format do you convert your RAW file to?

Many prefer TIFF because it supports editing in 16 bit -- which is more forgiving than 8 bit JPEG. It is also lossless, so the TIFF fans like to use this as their "Master Edit" file. They then use the TIFF Master Edit file to make copies to other, less noble, formats.

Other photographers don't see any advantage to having a TIFF ME file on the premise that JPEG is just fine most of the time, and anyone who has to edit their stuff so much that they would need the extra latitude of TIFF is just not getting the shot right in-camera and needs to work on their capture technique.

Pass me another one...

As to why the file size goes up so high from the RAW data to the TIFF file, I think that it's due to all the add-ons that go into processing the unprocessed RAW file.

Grant
Grant, that sound you just heard was me popping another tab:lol:Speaking of a warm night- someone told me it was 101 here today(not heat index)! Just when I thought I had it figured out...So maybe I should re-think my strategy. Shoot in nef, save as tiff(as my editable image to be saved as a jpeg later?) Hard drive space is not an issue-I have 200g on my computer and 160g external I got a good deal on, so I have nothing stored there yet. I can see this learning curve just started gaining altitude.BTW, what method do you reccomend? WhatI have been doing is shooting jpeg fine/large. What got me started on all this mess about tiff and raw was that in the beginning... I shot a few raw pics to try out in my trial version of nikon capture. When I made all the adjustments to the image I could stand for one night, I saved it as a tiff, remembering reading somewhere thet tiff is lossless. The rest, as they say...

I appreciate your reply, and I am amazed at the interest this question has generated. I am learning more faster this way than I ever could reading software help files

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 12:26 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

I've already got a Guinness open here. . .

As others have pointed out, the only real reason to use Tiff today is for lossless editing, or if your camera doesn't support any other lossless format, or if you're sending files to a printing company for advanced kinds of printing.

A few sources you might check out:

Wikipedia on image formats

Photonet: see the JPEG, TIFF, and RAW section on this page.

Another explanation


Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 12:43 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Norm in Fujino wrote:
Quote:
I've already got a Guiness open here. . .

As others have pointed out, the only real reason to use Tiff today is for lossless editing, or if your camera doesn't support any other lossless format, or if you're sending files to a printing company for advanced kinds of printing.

A few sources you might check out:

Wikipedia on image formats

Photonet: see the JPEG, TIFF, and RAW section on this page.

Another explanation

Have one for me, Norm!

These are great sites, and explained things well enough for me to know I don't need tiff.

Thanks for your reply,

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 3:21 AM   #16
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

Hawgwild wrote:
Quote:
I am using a D50 nikon and it only shoots nef or jpeg. How does the file coming out of the camera at 4mb become 34mb if I save it as a tif?
Software you use saves it with 16bit colours.
That's eaxactly what file size should be, just do the math. (three colours with 16 bits for each multiplied by amount of pixels and divided by eight for getting bytes)
3x16x3008x2000/8


granthagen wrote:
Quote:
Many prefer TIFF because it supports editing in 16 bit -- which is more forgiving than 8 bit JPEG.
Raason for this is also simple mathemathics, RAW uses 12bits per pixel which means there's 4096 brightness values available while JPEG can present only 256 values per colour.

Now while that means storing it with 16 bit accuracy (65536 values) wouldn't give additional accuracy itself it helps inside heavy editing which can be again thinked as, and really is, mathemathical calculations. And in those rule is that inside calculations you should round values much, otherwise end result can contain notable error. Same aplies to heavy editing with lot of phases, more bits means there's less need for rounding results of calculations.

If editing isn't required there aren't really much benefits from that, many programs give wide range of adjustments directly in RAW conversion process so you could easily get good looking results directly without extra editing.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 6:36 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I always keep my original RAW file in addition to the final image, which I save as JPEG. I like the idea of having the negative. As software improves, I can always go back and redo the image in the future if I want with the latest greatest editing package. Because Nikon's Raw files are compressed, this does not take up a bunch of extra space.

I do have point and shoot camera's that allow you to shoot in TIFF. I found it to be incredibly slow and it had little if any effect on how the final image looked when printed. Since I do on slight processing (levels, saturation, noise...less than a minute per image) and don't often use layers, TIFF offers no discernable advantage to my workflow.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 12:03 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Thanks, E.T,

I see now that at my level of learning, I don't need tiff...

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 12:09 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
I always keep my original RAW file in addition to the final image, which I save as JPEG. I like the idea of having the negative. As software improves, I can always go back and redo the image in the future if I want with the latest greatest editing package. Because Nikon's Raw files are compressed, this does not take up a bunch of extra space.

I do have point and shoot camera's that allow you to shoot in TIFF. I found it to be incredibly slow and it had little if any effect on how the final image looked when printed. Since I do on slight processing (levels, saturation, noise...less than a minute per image) and don't often use layers, TIFF offers no discernable advantage to my workflow.
I appreciate your input on this.. I tend to listen to those who know more than I do, and intend to in this case. I must admit though, I have never had any subject explained to me as well as this(except a few from my wife :Plol.)

Shooting raw and saving the "negative now makes really good sense, thanks again...

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:50 AM.