Tiff vs Raw

[Schu]

I have been shooting tiff ever sinced I got my E300's... this is for archival reasons. wouold I experience a better IMAGE result if I were using the RAW format? sometimes the exposure and image quality at max settings for TIFF have been a little uninspired, I want to be wow'ed by my shots. Of course I imagine opperator error has partial blame.

Peace
Schu

[mtclimber]

Schu-

I you are willing to go through the learning curve and storage drain (very much like your TIFF format images), RAW could be a much better alternative for you, because by using RAW you can essentially re-take the photo in your computer.

MT

[Schu]

Yes I think so... I have been designing and or using PShop for for over 20 years, so I am well versed... I just dont know about the RAW format as I am used to film and fairly new to digital. What are the differences from TIFF and RAW formats? are tehre more channels in RAW? or do folks use raw for the fact that it is slightly smaller file?

[Greg Chappell]

TIFF is basically just like JPEG, but without any of the compression and the end product is a "finished" file. All of the camera settings, from sharpening to white balance to contrast, etc., are used in the creation of the final image, but when it's processed, since none of the compression takes place, you are left with HUGE files.

RAW files are "unprocessed" data collected by the sensor that you have to "process" later on the computer with special programs either designed by Olympus or by third-party vendors like Phase One, Adobe, etc.. What that means is, noneof the settings on your camera for things like white balance,sharpening, contrast, etc., are"hard coded" onto your file. When you work the images on your computer, you take the data, apply the perameters you want to use, and when thefile is run through the converter you can output JPEG's of any quality or you can, if you have lots of memory, continue to output TIFF files. The RAW file remains untouched so you have, in effect, a digital negative that you can go back and process any number of times any different number of ways.

Shooting RAW with digital is a lot like usingfilm. Other than setting the ISO you want to use, you really only need to worry about composition and exposure as you shoot. All the other stuff can come later, and I like it that way. When I'm actually taking the picture, the last thing I want to have to think about in addition to the aboveis whether auto WB is going to work or should I change to cloudy or daylight, are my sharpening perameters right, is the contrast set to high or low, etc., etc..

[zoegy73]

TIFF from camera is 8 bits colors. RAW is 12 bits colors

[Schu]

Tag Info File is like Jpeg? dont think so, but you other information is really helpful... thanks I really appreciate it.

Schu

[Greg Chappell]

Cool cycle shot....

TIFF and JPEG do have things in COMMON in thatthey both take your in-camera settings and apply them within-camera processingto your image, creating a file unlike RAW, where the in-camera settings are not applied.Remember, not everyone in these sites are techno-geeks and would know the scientific difference between TIFF and JPEG. It's enough for thetypical (doesn't know, doesn't want or careto know)personto know camera perameter settings DO MATTER with either JPEG or TIFF, where with RAW they do not.

It's actually a little surprising you wouldn't know the difference between RAW or TIFF based on your knowledge/years of experiencewith Photoshop.

[mtclimber]

Greg-

What RAW software do you recommend for somebody who is just getting into RAW processing. Any good books on the topic as well? Thanks a lot.

MT

[mckennma]

I use Adobe Photoshop CS2 to process my E-500 RAW pictures. I picked up the Noise Ninja plugins for noise processing.

[Greg Chappell]

mtclimber wrote:

Greg-

What RAW software do you recommend for somebody who is just getting into RAW processing. Any good books on the topic as well? Thanks a lot.

MT

This is a loaded question! There are several converters out there that have rabid followings. I've tried and have three on my computer right now- Camera RAW that came with Photoshop CS, now CS-2, Olympus Studio that I purchased after getting my first Olympus DSLR, and Capture One from Phase One, which goes back to when I was using a Canon outfit.

I have the best luck with Capture One. Every image on my website was processed using that program. In terms of workflow, ease of use and best overall results it's just worked better for me than either of the other two.

Olympus Studio gives an OK result, but it's slow, slow, slow in use.

Photoshop Camera RAW probably has the most adjustments, making it the hardest to learn, at least for me,and the most difficult for me to get the sameresults I can get with Capture One in much less time.

There are others I see quoted from users, especially on the DPReview Olympus site, but I know little about them.