Raw v. Tiff

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-536ACA.11420226052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
> nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
> the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
> computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
> file size to Tiff.)

One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon
raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting
to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your
friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also
because they are huge).

Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.

The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no
processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they
need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored
preprocessed.

Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer
those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you
could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy)
jpegs.

Bruce.
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
>nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
>the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
>computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
>file size to Tiff.)

I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.
Tiff is the larger file sise of the two.
(Raw is larger than JPEG but smaller than TIFF).

Secondly, why Shoot in RAW?
Because of the high degree of control that one retains over the image.
Having made the decision about ISO, aperture and shutter speed
combination other 'in-camera variables' at the time of shooting remain
under our control.
Once having captured a scene in RAW one has the ability to virtually
revisit the scene and make changes to the camera settings, these
include:

Exposure Compensation
White Balance
Colour Control
Tonal Response
Lens Aberration
Vignetting
Noise Reduction

With TIFF files, the processing isn't 'lossy' but the image captured
remains 'as is' without the advantages of adjustment and editing as to
be found in RAW.

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

Bruce. <noone RemoveThis @example.net> wrote:

> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis RemoveThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-536ACA.11420226052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
> > nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
> > the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
> > computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
> > file size to Tiff.)
>
> One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon
> raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting
> to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your
> friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also
> because they are huge).
>
> Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.
>
> The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no
> processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they
> need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored
> preprocessed.
>
> Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer
> those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you
> could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy)
> jpegs.

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact 'lossy', not lossless.
TIFF's may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider:
Camera generated TIFF's are 8 bits, so you've already gone down from 12
or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme <doraymeRidThis.DeleteThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
>nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
>the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
>computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
>file size to Tiff.)


If you want the in camera software to do the processing for you, use TIFF. If you want to be in
control of the entire process, use RAW.
In my camera (not Nikon) , TIFF files are far larger than RAW.
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

"Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail DeleteThis @please.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%nomail@please.invalid...
> Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact 'lossy', not lossless.
> TIFF's may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider:
> Camera generated TIFF's are 8 bits, so you've already gone down from 12
> or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess the tiff standard supports modes that not all cameras support. Here
is says:

"....is a flexible image format that normally saves 8 or 16 bits per color -
red, green and blue - for a total of 24 or 48 bits..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

Bruce.
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

In article <yhq_j.2031$jI5.1926@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Bruce." <noone DeleteThis @example.net> wrote:

> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-536ACA.11420226052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
> > nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
> > the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
> > computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
> > file size to Tiff.)
>
> One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon
> raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting
> to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your
> friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also
> because they are huge).

Yes, the man with the camera did complain about that, he wanted to dump
raw onto the computer of someone at the function I referred to above.
But could not without the proprietory software. I suggested he carry the
software on a flash stick for when he travels.

>
> Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.
>
> The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no
> processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they
> need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored
> preprocessed.
>
> Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer
> those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you
> could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy)
> jpegs.
>

Sounds sensible. Depends on how fussy one wants to be I guess. Perhaps
you are implying that if the camera produces a high quality Tiff, it
still has made irreversible or difficult-to-reverse decisions and that a
skilled digital photographer will generally do better with raw and
making various decisions.

Perhaps for most people Tiff will be fine.

--
dorayme
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

In article <jqjk3456e1mor0drjvo2olefou68lqcvqd.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Dave <dave.RemoveThis@durbs.sa> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
> >nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
> >the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
> >computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
> >file size to Tiff.)
>
> I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.

Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the
vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it
varies from camera to camera and software to software?

--
dorayme
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

On Mon, 26 May 2008 18:03:56 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>In article <jqjk3456e1mor0drjvo2olefou68lqcvqd DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> Dave <dave DeleteThis @durbs.sa> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
>> <doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
>> >nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
>> >the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
>> >computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
>> >file size to Tiff.)
>>
>> I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.
>
>Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the
>vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it
>varies from camera to camera and software to software?


Simply as test in order to be able to supply exact figures, I shot a
RAW file from my desk and saved as a TIFF.

This is the sizes:
DSCF7257.jpg.......................................5,538,827
DSCF7257.RAF.....................................19,143,872
DSCF7257.tiff........................................27,404,416

RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

dorayme <doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <jqjk3456e1mor0drjvo2olefou68lqcvqd DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> Dave <dave DeleteThis @durbs.sa> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
> > <doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
> > >nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
> > >the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
> > >computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
> > >file size to Tiff.)
> >
> > I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.
>
> Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the
> vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it
> varies from camera to camera and software to software?

TIFF can be compressed losslessly, but I don't think many cameras do
that. Most cameras that support TIFF save those files uncompressed, and
then a simple calculation will tell you the file size: It's the number
of pixels x 24 bits. An uncompressed RAW file on the other hand is the
number of pixels x 12 bits or 14 bits, because RAW has only one channel
per pixel.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

Personally, I'd recommend not getting involved in RAW right off the bat,
but instead concentrate on getting to know your new camera, and getting
nicely composed images with good color.

Once you are at that point, experiment with RAW and see if you can achieve
even better images - my feeling is that the difference is there,
particularly with noise in the shadows, and it is subtle.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

In article <1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail RemoveThis @please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

> Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact 'lossy', not lossless.

Do you mean that information has been lost and cannot be recovered,
information which would otherwise be contained in a raw file?


> TIFF's may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider:
> Camera generated TIFF's are 8 bits, so you've already gone down from 12
> or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess, in the end, it depends loss of print or screen quality that is
actually able to be noticed and felt. I have no idea on whether people
can look at nicely made pics and tell that they are not high quality
jpgs rather than Tiffs or prepared from Raw...

--
dorayme
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

dorayme <doraymeRidThis.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%nomail@please.invalid>,
> nomail.RemoveThis@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
>
> > Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact 'lossy', not lossless.
>
> Do you mean that information has been lost and cannot be recovered,
> information which would otherwise be contained in a raw file?

Exactly. Most cameras do not support TIFF any more, because RAW is the
better choice. TIFF is from 'the old days', when RAW had not been
'invented' yet as a file format and TIFF was the only choice to get
images from the camera without lossy JPEG-compression.

> > TIFF's may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider:
> > Camera generated TIFF's are 8 bits, so you've already gone down from 12
> > or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.
>
> I guess, in the end, it depends loss of print or screen quality that is
> actually able to be noticed and felt. I have no idea on whether people
> can look at nicely made pics and tell that they are not high quality
> jpgs rather than Tiffs or prepared from Raw...

You won't see the difference between JPEG and TIFF in most cases. But
you will see the difference between RAW and JPEG/TIFF. Easily. Someone
who knows how to use a RAW converter properly will get *much* better
results. Starting from RAW you can get better detail in shadows and
highlights for example.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff 

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very
>nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is
>the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all
>computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in
>file size to Tiff.)


Hey there dorayme! The easy way to explain the difference is
that TIFF is one way to process an image. The picture you take with
your camera is processed by taking the ISO setting you used, the white
balance you used, etc. and processing all of these settings into a
TIFF image.
The RAW picture means that all of the information that was
processed in the TIFF image is not processed in any way. The "raw"
data is stored as data on the memory card and then downloaded to your
computer. Having this raw data means that you can change these
settings in the computer. If you had the white balance set to
tungsten light, you can remove that setting and instead, set it to
sunlight, or whatever light you want. With the TIFF image, this
setting is locked in and can't be changed, since the TIFF processing
used the tungsten light setting when it processed the image and made
it into a TIFF image.
By having the raw data available with no processing done to it,
it's possible to change a number of the settings you used on the
camera after you've taken the picture. You can manipulate this raw
data in a number of different ways, so it's as if you are taking the
picture over, only now you can control the settings from your
computer.
It's kinda like taking the picture, viewing the results in RAW
and saying, "Wait, I didn't want to use this white balance so I'll
take it out and insert this white balance. Okay, now I want to
change this setting or that setting, so I'll take out what I used and
insert this other setting."

Talker
 >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff