Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
TIFF vs raw
Jun 3, 2022 09:59:57 #
burkphoto wrote:
Some scanners last a long time. We bought an early iMac DV around 2000. It came in a bundle with a cheap Agfa flatbed scanner. We used that in the office for as long as we could find a driver for it. When I couldn't, I took it to an electronics recycler. If I'd known about VueScan at the time, we would probably still use it. It was adequate for single page documents.
The -210 came out around 2010, after your need.
Jun 3, 2022 10:03:35 #
Longshadow wrote:
Is that because LR intrinsically saves the original or one must keep the original explicitly.
Does LR keep the original and save the edit history?
Does LR keep the original and save the edit history?
LR never touches the original.
You view proxy images made from the original with your adjustments applied.
You export conversions with your adjustments applied.
You print conversions with your adjustments applied.
You compose photo books and slide shows with your adjustments applied.
You send copies to other applications with your adjustments applied.
This is the same "touch pixels once" workflow model used by professional photo lab software such as Kodak DP2. (Yes, still available for labs in version 22!)
Jun 3, 2022 10:07:02 #
burkphoto wrote:
LR never touches the original. br br You view pr... (show quote)
Cool. Non-destructive editing, I like that.
Too bad I don't have (or want) LR.
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Jun 3, 2022 10:12:46 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
And hopefully, you know what you're doing (along with everyone at the lab) and why, and not down in the mud with up bugs on UHH ...
I've walked into a giclee lab with my laptop and plugged into their printer and monitor. I let their technician drive. He made a print directly from my image in Lightroom Classic. Wow. It was so much better than the print from mPix (made from an sRGB JPEG), even though I could not complain about the mPix print. It was as good as any print on silver halide could be, with that technology.
You do get what you pay for... In this case it was time, expertise, technology, and higher quality materials, plus more brilliance and print longevity for my client.
Jun 3, 2022 10:14:30 #
Longshadow wrote:
Cool. Non-destructive editing, I like that.
Too bad I don't have (or want) LR.
Too bad I don't have (or want) LR.
What have we been telling you for now over 7 years ... ?
Jun 3, 2022 10:18:13 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
What have we been telling you for now over 7 years ... ?
Probably the same thing.
Since I don't use/want it, it's irrelephant [sic] to me, so why remember all the nitty-gritty details about it?
I have enough problems sometimes remembering important things.
Jun 3, 2022 10:34:47 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Why do people waste time converting to TIFF.
The raw has all the data and from what I see most all, if not all, web sites only use JPEGs.
Also most printers seem to require JPEGs. Perhaps some special printers use TIFFs.
But overall they seem like a waste of life when one has the raw file.
The raw has all the data and from what I see most all, if not all, web sites only use JPEGs.
Also most printers seem to require JPEGs. Perhaps some special printers use TIFFs.
But overall they seem like a waste of life when one has the raw file.
People probably don't "convert" to tiff. They work on the raw file and then "save" as a tiff (or psd). The reason for this is that you can't save your work after done editing the raw as a raw again. You must save it as something other than the original. The biggest reason to save as a tiff is because many people use layers and only certain file formats will save all the layers. The second reason is because a tiff is a 16/32 bit file - more data means more detail and range of color. A jpg is only an 8-bit file.
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Jun 3, 2022 10:39:06 #
kymarto wrote:
Not at all a waste of time if one has edited the file in PS, with adjustments that cannot be saved in the sidecar file.
Saving as 16 bit TIFF allows for later adjustments for intended use.
Saving as 16 bit TIFF allows for later adjustments for intended use.
Psd allows for later adjustments. Particularly if your adjustments are done with layers.
Any other image format allows for later adjustments, including jpg.
Tif is not required. Yes, tif has more range of adjustment assuming you're using 16 bit tif. Jpg uses lossy compression, but if you do the compression at reasonable levels the effects are not noticeable without extreme readjustments. But a tif file can easily be a factor of 10 larger than a jpg file.
I use LR/PS, so PS passes an image back to LR as a psd. I can edit it further in LR or re-edit it as a psd in PS again. All the layers are preserved. (I know you can save a tif with layers, but why bother when you have the psd original, native to PS).
I played with tif when I first started working with digital images and quickly dismissed it. The only time tif is required is when the customer demands it.
Jun 3, 2022 10:41:47 #
therwol wrote:
If you're scanning slides and negatives, you can't scan RAW. TIFF is the only lossless format available to you. You can work with the TIFF files without any loss of quality in multiple edits and then convert to jpeg.
Png is available.
Jun 3, 2022 10:41:59 #
NickGee wrote:
Here's one scenario: When editing a RAW image in Lightroom (for example) and you wish to use an external editor to enhance some elements of the image (using photoshop, DxO, Nik, etc.), the file is converted by Lightroom into a TIFF file for editing. You then, finally, when finished editing in the external program, export the file as a JPG.
That's what I do.
Jun 3, 2022 10:45:52 #
Longshadow wrote:
Is that because LR intrinsically saves the original or one must keep the original explicitly.
Does LR keep the original and save the edit history?
Does LR keep the original and save the edit history?
LR keeps the original and saves the edit history.
(You can write the history from your PS edits if you do it before you close the session. However, I have not really found any good way to re-use the PS history, probably because I haven't put much effort into it).
Jun 3, 2022 10:48:47 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
LR keeps the original and saves the edit history.
(You can write the history from your PS edits if you do it before you close the session. However, I have not really found any good way to re-use the PS history, probably because I haven't put much effort into it).
(You can write the history from your PS edits if you do it before you close the session. However, I have not really found any good way to re-use the PS history, probably because I haven't put much effort into it).
I don't use PS either.
Jun 3, 2022 10:56:07 #
So which has more data? Raw or tif? Clearly, the raw file has more information. The tif file is an image format that is produced from the raw file. The process of generating a tif from a raw requires a number of parameters that are applied to the raw data to produce the final image. That image can certainly be modified later, but some of those parameters are difficult to undo, so the modifications are limited.
In order to view the image from the raw data, it must first be converted to a viewable image (sidestepping the question of whether or not the raw data are an image). For that reason, you can't send the raw data to a printer. If you 'view' a raw file on your computer using software other than an editor, you are most likely seeing the embedded preview, which is generated in the camera by applying those parameters selected by the camera (based on your camera settings).
If the raw file has more possibilities than the tif, why use a tif (beyond an exchange format between editors)? You want to save the original (raw) anyway.
In order to view the image from the raw data, it must first be converted to a viewable image (sidestepping the question of whether or not the raw data are an image). For that reason, you can't send the raw data to a printer. If you 'view' a raw file on your computer using software other than an editor, you are most likely seeing the embedded preview, which is generated in the camera by applying those parameters selected by the camera (based on your camera settings).
If the raw file has more possibilities than the tif, why use a tif (beyond an exchange format between editors)? You want to save the original (raw) anyway.
Jun 3, 2022 11:06:34 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Why do people waste time converting to TIFF.
The raw has all the data and from what I see most all, if not all, web sites only use JPEGs.
Also most printers seem to require JPEGs. Perhaps some special printers use TIFFs.
But overall they seem like a waste of life when one has the raw file.
The raw has all the data and from what I see most all, if not all, web sites only use JPEGs.
Also most printers seem to require JPEGs. Perhaps some special printers use TIFFs.
But overall they seem like a waste of life when one has the raw file.
Simple. If you take an image from LrC to PS and back you can either save as a .PSD or .TIF file. Edits in PS cannot be saved in the RAW image.
Try saving a stitched panorama, focus stack, or multi exposure image as RAW and you will go down a rabbit hole without end.
Even then, the RAW is never discarded.
Jun 3, 2022 11:14:40 #
ELNikkor wrote:
Don't know what TIFF is, or why some of my files were saved as TIFF in Gigapixel, but the files were huge; probably good for printing murals.
You choose the output format in Gigapixel AI
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.