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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2006, 12:52 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

I noticed for the first time tonight that a tif file is 34.5 mb, while an nef of the same pic is only 4.7 mb. Can someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks in advance

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 8, 2006, 1:03 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

What software are you using to edit? Does it support compressed Tiff?
By default (on some software) tiff files are not compressed and they will be large. Potentially very large.

Tiff supports several types of compression, I would suggest the LZW compression if you have that option. It is non-distructive and quite good.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 1:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
What software are you using to edit? Does it support compressed Tiff?
By default (on some software) tiff files are not compressed and they will be large. Potentially very large.

Tiff supports several types of compression, I would suggest the LZW compression if you have that option. It is non-distructive and quite good.

Eric
Eric, thanks for your reply! I am using photoshop elements 4.0, but I have to admit, I'm still learning this digital stuff, and resizing photos is hard stuff for me right now.:? I will try what you suggested. (In many ways film was easier! )Thanks again-

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 6:15 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

The NEF files are compressed whereas TIF files are not compressed unless you specify it. This means in the TIF file you have 1 byte for every pixel. This is not resizing the photo when you save the file as TIF you have the option to compress the file.

Basically with compression if you have a row of pixels that are the same then in the file you get a couple of bytes that say the next 20 pixels are this colour, uncompressed you get 20 bytes. It's nowhere near that simple but that's the basic principal.

As Eric says the LZW compression in non-destructive so what you get when you uncompress is exactly the same as you started with. That said I have personally had a few files corrupted when saved with LZW compression and this has not happened on uncompressed files, I don't know if anyone else has suffered a similar problem.

When you save as JPG these are also compressed files but the compression is lossy. This means that you never get back quite what you started with. If you use high quality this is not normally noticable but it's there.

Ken
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 11:34 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Nagasaki,

Thanks, I think I understand things a little better, but have another question. If I shoot raw, and "save as" something else, like a jpeg or tif, understanding what i do about them, then what would the advantage be to save a tif, if I still have the nef? I'm sorry if that sounds confusing, I guess what I am asking is- what do most people save as after editing, and when would you want to save as a tiff, given its large file size?:angry:

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 4:03 AM   #6
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

TIFF would be useful for editing phase thanks to it being lossless, it isn't useful as final presentation format because of its size.

Also it's already processed by camera so for lot of editing RAW is much more usefull output format for camera because it's literally raw unprocessed data from sensor and generally uses at least 12bits per pixel.
But RAW is monochromatic so one pixel takes just that 12bits while TIFF uses 8 bits for every colour meaning storing one pixel requires 24bits. Also TIFF supports 16 bit colours which means 48bits for colour data of one pixel and doubled file size. (16 bits per colour would be useful for heavy editing and saving image between editing phases)


And nature of photographs is such that lossless compressions won't really work to it because unlike in presentation graphics, very few adjacent pixels have similar values.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 6:32 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Because TIFF files are processed by the camera, I see no advantage in shooting in TIFF (unless you like slow performance:-)). TIFF is useful in editing as it is lossless..this allows you to save often, or come back to an image later without losing info during the save. That being said, unless you plan to work on the image later, there is really no need to save the final image in TIFF, especially if you keep the original RAW version (as most photographers do).
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 9:52 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

E.T,

Thanks so much for your "tutoring". I am not totally illiterate when it comes to digital photography, just post processing ha ha :-)You and others who are smart about this stuff and are willing to share your knowledge really make these forums ablessing for the rest of us. Hopefully, someday I will be able to help someone caught in the same learning curve I am now in. Thanks again.

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 10:04 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
Because TIFF files are processed by the camera, I see no advantage in shooting in TIFF (unless you like slow performance:-)). TIFF is useful in editing as it is lossless..this allows you to save often, or come back to an image later without losing info during the save. That being said, unless you plan to work on the image later, there is really no need to save the final image in TIFF, especially if you keep the original RAW version (as most photographers do).
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? Is the extra size interpolation or some ,as E.T said the pixels are assigned more bits. If I shoot raw, then save as tif, edit the tif image and save again as jpeg, I keep the nef so later I can save again as tif, edit, save as jpeg... Am I in the ballpark or have I blasted off? I really am hanging on what you are saying, and trying to teach "this old dog" some new tricks(digital imaging).:?

Thanks again,

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 10:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Now i'm confused:lol:!! My workflow does not include TIFF, and I'm not sure how a Tiff becomes a larger file after converting from RAW. I do my adjustments in RAW, and save as JPEG for printing. I keep the original RAW file in case I want to do adjustments later.

Some camera's do allow to shoot in tiff, but it is very slow. I didn't catch that you were shooting with a D50 (I should have, NEF is nikon only) hence my comment about shooting in TIFF and slow performance.

As long as you keep the original NEF fil, and do all your editing at once on an image, there is really no need to use TIFF in your workflow.
rjseeney 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 6:58 PM.