 |
|
|
|
Next: Saving Actions
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2007
Posts: 80
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>graphics>photoshop (more info?)
|
|
|
dorayme 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.)
In simple terms...
RAW is ALL of the information captured by the sensor and stored down to the
memory card as-is. It's the pure image data from the sensor.
TIFF is a proprietary image format readable by more or less all computers.
To save an image as a TIFF, your camera must process the pure data and
discard a lot of it. You have no control over what it discards.
With RAW, all the processing is done once you load it onto your computer, so
you have much more control over what gets kept and what gets discarded. Once
you process it, you then save it as a TIFF or Jpeg yourself so it can be
viewed on almost any other computer.
No computer can read a RAW file by default as RAW is not a standardised
format. Every manufacturer has their own RAW format, and many have slightly
differing formats from one model to another.
To view a RAW file on your computer, you need to install appropriate RAW
conversion software which is supplied along with your camera on CDRom.
However, if you're running Photoshop, you might be lucky enough to find your
camera's format is supported by photoshop, so no need to install another
converter.
If you want to get the best from your photography, shoot in RAW mode.
You get better dynamic range, better colour depth, less noise, and more
tweakability.
--
http://www.SavePentney.co.uk
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Save-Pentney |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2007
Posts: 80
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 18:03:56 +1000, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis RemoveThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> 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
That's processing the RAW to a TIFF yourself in the computer?
Presumably you're saving it down at maximum quality?
I'd imagine the file size difference reported by the OP might be a result of
the in-camera quality settings ~ although I admit that I am guessing
somewhat.
> RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600
Nice camera.
I'm a fan of Fujis myself. I use an S5600 and an S6500fd.
Oh to have enough disposable funds to buy myself a nice shiny S5 pro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2007
Posts: 80
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
dorayme wrote:
> In article <yhq_j.2031$jI5.1926@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> "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).
>
> 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.
You've pretty much got the jist of it.
But don't write off TIFF or Jpeg mode completely.
There are still some applications where RAW just isn't suitable as it's not
fast enough, and even professional photographers still use Jpeg to get the
fast write time.
Sports photography is a classic example.
Sports photographers have to catch as many shots of a fleeting piece of
action in a short burst, so they use Jpeg mode as that allows them to write
far more frames per second to the memory card than RAW mode allows.
That's also why most sports photographers tend to use Canon DSLR's, as they
generally have the fastest burst shooting mode. That's the most frames
writen to the memory card per second.
The trade off is, as always, quality against speed. >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 317
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 01, 2008
Posts: 18
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sam"
>>
>> This is the sizes:
>> DSCF7257.jpg.......................................5,538,827
>> DSCF7257.RAF.....................................19,143,872
>> DSCF7257.tiff........................................27,404,416
>
>That's processing the RAW to a TIFF yourself in the computer?
>Presumably you're saving it down at maximum quality?
Yes, which is fair compared to the RAW file which is always maximum
quality. And if the file size reported by the OP is somewhat
compressed, file sizes can not be compared.
>I'd imagine the file size difference reported by the OP might be a result of
>the in-camera quality settings ~ although I admit that I am guessing
>somewhat.
>
>> RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600
>
>Nice camera.
>I'm a fan of Fujis myself. I use an S5600 and an S6500fd.
>Oh to have enough disposable funds to buy myself a nice shiny S5 pro.
>
Glad to see I am not the only Fuji fan here:-)))
Fact no. 1 is I bought my first Fuji when digital photos was relative
new, and that was my first digital camera of course. Thereafter I
bought a FinePix s5000 when that model hit the market, and I read
reviews about the FinePix s9600 days after it was developed and
waited for it. When it landed in South Africa, I was one of the first
to buy it. The s5000 though, keep on being one of the best cameras
out, and I gave it to my wife.
So, fact no. 1 - I never had any kind of camera other than Fuji.
Fact no. 2 - Fuji is the best camera I ever had.
The S5 pro... tell us about it when you buy:-) >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 30, 2007
Posts: 18
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dave" <dave.RemoveThis@durbs.sa> wrote in message
news:rb4m34523o6dfvei77n64h7h05rk56l03n@4ax.com...
>
> Sam"
>>>
>>> This is the sizes:
>>> DSCF7257.jpg.......................................5,538,827
>>> DSCF7257.RAF.....................................19,143,872
>>> DSCF7257.tiff........................................27,404,416
>>
>>That's processing the RAW to a TIFF yourself in the computer?
>>Presumably you're saving it down at maximum quality?
>
> Yes, which is fair compared to the RAW file which is always maximum
> quality. And if the file size reported by the OP is somewhat
> compressed, file sizes can not be compared.
>
>>I'd imagine the file size difference reported by the OP might be a result
>>of
>>the in-camera quality settings ~ although I admit that I am guessing
>>somewhat.
>>
>>> RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600
>>
>>Nice camera.
>>I'm a fan of Fujis myself. I use an S5600 and an S6500fd.
>>Oh to have enough disposable funds to buy myself a nice shiny S5 pro.
>>
>
> Glad to see I am not the only Fuji fan here:-)))
>
> Fact no. 1 is I bought my first Fuji when digital photos was relative
> new, and that was my first digital camera of course. Thereafter I
> bought a FinePix s5000 when that model hit the market, and I read
> reviews about the FinePix s9600 days after it was developed and
> waited for it. When it landed in South Africa, I was one of the first
> to buy it. The s5000 though, keep on being one of the best cameras
> out, and I gave it to my wife.
>
> So, fact no. 1 - I never had any kind of camera other than Fuji.
> Fact no. 2 - Fuji is the best camera I ever had.
>
> The S5 pro... tell us about it when you buy:-)
My friend who runs a pro photography company uses an S5 as his main camera,
and has an S3 as a backup.
He's another Fuji fan. >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 44
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:23 am
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1ihjzv8.72w08o1pom0ziN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail DeleteThis @please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%nomail@please.invalid>,
> > nomail DeleteThis @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.
Thanks for this Johan. On a practical level, it does not affect me (my
digital does jpgs only and I still use film with my Nikon gear) but it
is very interesting that Raw is something more modern and that one can
get "much" better results.
--
dorayme >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 44
|
(Msg. 23) Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:34 am
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <jolm34d94ouhir0lgkbb4u51178eaham76.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Talker <Talker.RemoveThis@thegood.com> 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.)
>
>
> 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
This is a very nice clear explanation! Thanks for it.
--
dorayme >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 329
|
(Msg. 24) Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Bruce. <noone RemoveThis @example.net> wrote:
> "Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail RemoveThis @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
Make that "the tiff standard supports modes that *NO* camera supports".
AFAIK, there is no camera that supports 48 bits TIFF.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 29, 2008
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 25) Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:00 am
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-93D85D.11341327052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <jolm34d94ouhir0lgkbb4u51178eaham76.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> Talker <Talker.RemoveThis@thegood.com> 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.)
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> This is a very nice clear explanation! Thanks for it.
I would add that PhotoShop CS2 and CS3 allow at least four stops of latitude
(+2 or -2) with the exposure in addition to the white balance when using
their Camera RAW converter. Even blown highlights can be "recovered" to some
extent. >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2007
Posts: 80
|
(Msg. 26) Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
just bob wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-93D85D.11341327052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>> In article <jolm34d94ouhir0lgkbb4u51178eaham76.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
>> Talker <Talker.RemoveThis@thegood.com> 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.)
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> This is a very nice clear explanation! Thanks for it.
>
> I would add that PhotoShop CS2 and CS3 allow at least four stops of
> latitude (+2 or -2) with the exposure in addition to the white
> balance when using their Camera RAW converter. Even blown highlights
> can be "recovered" to some extent.
With CS2, I can go to plus or minus 4 on Fuji RAF files.
Of course it does very much depend on how good your cameras dynamic range
is, but if your camera supports RAW mode, chances are it does have a fairly
good dynamic range.
--
http://www.SavePentney.co.uk
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Save-Pentney >> Stay informed about: Raw v. Tiff |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 01, 2008
Posts: 18
|
(Msg. 27) Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Raw v. Tiff [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | JPEG to TIFF - Recently I was given a Dimage Z6 digital camera. There aren't any options to shoot in TIFF or RAW, only JPEG. If I do a batch conversion to a TIFF format, will I actually achieve anything useful or will I just be increasing the file size with little..
Can't edit TIFF - I scanned a black and white document to to TIFF Group 4. PS can open it and display it but I can't edit it. Do I need to convert it first? If so, then how?
How to scale up a TIFF? - The problem is that I have a TIFF which measures a meagre 300px x 300px. I need it to print out nicely* on a sheet measuring 100cm x 100cm. Quite a predicament. So, the question is, how do I scale my 300px x 300px image to get a 16,000px x 16,000px..
TIFF-files - I am working with TIFF-files in windows XP and photo-shop. When there are lot of them, aspecially, in Windows XP it works ferry slow. Is there method to let it work quicker, as quick as JPG- files?
Tiff image with vb - How to store multi images into one tiff file. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
