They do - Epson v850 will save in tiff and most (all?) raw is a camera manufacturer modified tiff.

I'm fairly certain all higher end scanners save tiff and if not it's all down to the software. Try the excellent viewscan or Siverfast (if you have more patience and money!)

Most DSLRs record raw format in 12 or 14 bits per channel per pixel. 12 bits has 4095 possible tones for each of R,G or B channel giving a total of up to 68 billion colours per pixel (4095x4095x4095)

As most know, jpeg is limited to 8 bits or 255 colour tones per channel or maximum 16 million per pixel.

So any jpeg processing - in camera or elsewhere - potentially reduces tones by a factor of 16 and colours by 4000.

But who cares, as after all the human eye can resolve about 1 million colours, well within the range of jpeg, and the moment we display on screen, or worse a printed image the maximum number of colours plummets.

Any jpeg processor reduces the number of colours by some mathematical system - at its very simplest by banding. ie if all 4096 tones are used for one channel it will convert 16 raw tones to a single jpeg tone.

And therein lies the problem, because post processing options on colour balance, exposure, shadows, contrast etc are potentially severely restricted.

So, on a difficult to process jpeg image, if Topaz have developed an 'intelligent' process to largely deconstruct the 'mechanical' compression processing of a jpeg image, then I will certainly give it a try when I have a jpeg that I want to improve.

And a fair few of my old scanned slides and negs could do with all the help they can get :)

the problem with the Grand Canyon is that it is so incredible, few photos can do it justice. So plan your visit if you can. The sun position and weather have a potentially huge impact on the image. I've been 4 times, and always hopeful of that elusive 'wow' shot. My very best image was when it was snowing on the rim, and brilliant sunshine in the valley (with a 1 mile depth, its hardly surprising the weather can be dramatically different top to bottom.)

find out which views you really want to visit. There are a number of guides - a very quick search gave many and one I briefly looked at identified his preferences (https://jameskaiser.com/grand-canyon-guide/views/ - some great shots although colours looked magenta saturated on my monitor.) Here's another aimed at sunrise and sunset https://www.findingtheuniverse.com/photographing-sunrise-and-sunset-at/

The best daytime images I have are when the shadows show up the rugged landscape but not with large deep shadows. This means early morning and late afternoon. Get hold of the photographers Ephemeris (TPE) or similar and visualise where the sun/ shadows will be at your locations of interest. As a rule of thumb, if the view is to the west then morning , and vica versa (cos a morning shot to the east is predominantly shadow.)

From my limited experience, most visitors head for the Village so it can get crowded. Next time I go I'm going to try for the east first and move west as the day progresses. Trouble is the nearest accommodation is miles away and can take 2 or more hours just to get to the gate.

Finally, picking up very much on wdross comments - don't let your camera dictate the day and just look and soak it in.

picking up on several previous points - I have 2 complementary camera bodies.

A full frame EOS 6DII - because I really like (but don't necessarily need) the IQ I can achieve with it.

An EOS M5 - because with an adapter it uses the same lenses; has a x1.6 extra range on tele lenses and a fast burst rate; is a small, lightweight backup for the FF when on extended trips.

I also have a couple of extra M lenses for the M5 so it is a compact, self contained travel kit if I need to travel light

and an action cam solely for wet/ dirty/ sandy work 'cos I don't want to risk my main gear.

If it not too late to rethink direction, travel south :) This means you'll be on the coast side of the road rather than the offside. Surprising what difference the width of a road makes. When we did Hwy 1 S-N we turned around so many times 'just to get a better view', and S-N traffic never interferes with the view either. Also possible to do the whole of Hwy 1 in a day - wonder why it took us 3 days??

this debate is so common and repetitive I almost didn't comment.

For reporting and documentary purposes the major objective is to demonstrate the facts. It would be completely unacceptable to 'doctor' the image to exaggerate what it is intended to show. Other than cropping and maybe improving shadow detail the image should be 'as is'. Attempts to deliberately exaggerate are effectively lying.

That's not to say that such images cannot be emotive and artistic - I think of the iconic image of US marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima among others.

Once you move into artistic interpretation then all constraints are off and the mind's eye of the photographer is all that matters.

Perhaps curiously, both genres have the same objective in the viewer of the image - to 'see' what the photographer saw.

One problem occurs when the latter is passed of as the former. I recently saw some images advertising holidays in Iceland. I've been there, and it does have some of the most stunning scenery in a relatively small land mass. But I can guarantee that the overprocessed, almost HDR image of one huge waterfall, with shadows falling towards the amazing sun and sky, is nothing like that! I guess we probably expect much advertising photography to be economic with the truth. Perhaps indirectly, that is what the SOOC advocates are rebelling against?

amphoto1 is spot on:
EC can only change something which is being set by the camera, ie any exposure component which is auto.

On both my Canon cameras if Auto ISO is set and I set:
* Aperture priority, EV changes shutter speed until it runs out of headroom, then changes ISO;
* Shutter priority, EV changes ISO, (aperture is set wide open with Shutter priority so there is nowhere for it to go if you want to overexpose);
* Manual, if I change shutter speed or aperture, ISO changes to keep EV in the centre (remember the -/+ EV display IS an exposure meter 'dial') until it runs out of headroom then changes EV;

If ISO is fixed value and I set:
*Aperture priority, EV changes Shutter speed;
* Shutter priority, EV changes aperture;
* Manual, I can change shutter speed or aperture and the exposure meter goes up and down in direct relationship to direction of change. EV is not relevant.

In all cases, except Manual and fixed ISO, if the camera has insufficient light for an exposure it gives an error condition.

For me the only unexpected result is that Shutter priority set the aperture at maximum. But on thinking about it, where else should it set it?

Good question and although it was almost as I expected, until I tested it I couldn't be certain!

There are technical and creative components to a good image.

if you have a mediocre camera and lens, then if the image is poor you don't know whether it's the tools or me.

With a good camera and lenses, I KNOW the issues are invariably mine!

But I don't normally compare my camera with someone else's. :) The only exception is when I change or upgrade - I compare what I have with what I'm interested in to see if there is an advantage in change.

well I am a real fan of mirrorless. Surely there a better name / acronym? Seems strange to define a fine product by what it doesn't have!! We don't define DSLRs as filmless SLRs. DSLC? (direct single lens camera?)

I'm a Canon user (like most other amateur system users, I stick with it cos the cost of changing all the lenses would be way too expensive) and just got the EOS R. Yes it is overpriced, yes there is some functionality that is surprisingly missing, yes, when the EF lenses are fitted there is not a lot of weight or bulk difference, but I don't care - IQ is excellent, focusing super fast and accurate, burst speed, EVF, touch screen, completely silent operation if required etc etc. I am sure it is the same with the new Nikon mirrorless, and Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic have been there and more for quite a while.

I'm sure in 10 years people will look back at this debate and be amazed.

There are many people who like and really enjoy older technology - I have a mechanical automatic watch and clockwork timepieces because I'm fascinated with the mechanism, others really love vintage cars and so on. But in general for photography digital is so much more convenient and the big pixel sensors such as EOS 5Ds and top end Sony's have now just about caught up with the best resolution and dynamic range of low ASA larger format film for the pixel peepers.

So carry your 5x4 plate camera or Twin lens Reflex camera in your model T Ford if you want to, but not me thank you very much :)

This topic in one form or another is a perennial chestnut! I make the following observations:

Anyone who uses a JPEG straight from the camera is using post processing. The post processing of the camera is very extensive to take the RAW data and turn it into a JPEG. That post processing is pre-conditioned by choices the photographer made - picture style, colour balance, exposure compensation to name a few. Similarly the moment someone just crops, straightens, or changes brightness (exposure) they too are post processing. Perhaps the least in-camera modified is from a smart phone?

More seriously though, there are many genres of imagery. It would be unforgivable for a photojournalist to deliberately modify an image to mislead the viewer. Similarly a Documentary photographer is surely bound to show as best s/he can the truth of the subject matter they are trying to convey.

But a fine art photographer - be it landscape or fashion or whatever, is free to portray as best they can, using whatever tools at their disposal, what they experienced or is trying to show. In that, they are no diffierent from a painter, its just there toolkit is a camera instead of a brush and paint. Adams is a past master with film. David Bailey, one of the most successful fashion photographers of recent times, seems to turn his hand to any genre and meium with ease, and has said something like he would have been just as happy to use brush and canvas but that it took too long to dry.

In our own way, some of us want to be journalists or to document what we see, others aspire to fine art to convey a mood or emotions. And many just want snapshots of events as reminders of a great day out/ party/ trip to the lake or whatver. None is right or wrong. Decide what you want and go for it is what I say.

I wish I was good enough to be fine art photographer, not for money but just so others enjoy some of my images like I do. Much of my photography is by my own definition, snapshots and is post processed with Fastone viewer for crop, shadow and highlight exposure, straightening etc in a few seconds. Every now and then I get a good one which deserves a lot more attention to turn it into something I want to hang on a wall as in this example from Bryce Canyon. Most of my photos look almost identical to tens of thousands of others and a a personal reminder of a great day out. As I was walking back to the car after the sun set carrying the tripod with camera still attached, I glanced to the left, immediately set up the tripod and took this shot. Less than a minute later, once I had 4 or 5 in the bag, I then positioned to better frame etc and the moment and light was gone. This one image had more photo-shopping than the rest from that day together: layering and masking to isolate and change exposure and contrast of the tree; masking to increase contrast and vibrance in the sky; some spot dodging; cropping, straightening; some cloning to remove litter left by another visitor etc. About the only thing not touched was colour balance and overall exposure. I ended up with an image which as near as I can remember is what I saw and experienced.

If you like it then great, if not, never mind. if it's too processed for your taste I don't care

i resisted the subscription model for Photoshop / Lightroom CC since it came in. Like many of those here, I actually paid for upgrades every couple of years or so.

But CS6 is now well out of date wrt to camera RAW. As mentioned many people are completely happy with JPEG, but long experience at work before retiring, and as an keen amateur photographer since, is that I work in the most 'complete' data format until the very last. JPEG has been clipped significantly before the data even leaves the camera. RAW hasn't so when I've messed up the exposure or the white balance, it is significantly easier and definitely more realistic to fix from RAW.

With the black Friday deal this year I finally succumbed to upgrade my PS/LR and could kick myself for not doing it sooner (even at the $1=£1 'conversion' across the Atlantic.) No more farting around converting RAW to PSD to use with CS6 and having to do everything and then sort, rate, and tidy up the 'keepers'. With Lightroom classic CC the import job is easy.

I typically scrap 60-70% of my images, develop most of the rest quickly in LR to export as JPEG, and a small proportion are worthy of the effort of export to PS for refined editing.

With LR CC classic (ie NOT the online LR part of the subscription) on a compact laptop, I can rate a day's images with [ctrl] up or down arrow in a very short time and have effectively identified 'deletes' (down arrow), 'maybe's (do nothing), and definite keepers (up arrow). I also colour code a group of images (for a panorama, or exposure blending say.) A daily backup of LR catalog and where I saved the data using Microsoft Synctoy to a 256GB usb and I have 3 copies before evening meal (original card, on Laptop, and 256GB USB.) And at end of the trip export to my desktop at home for final finishing - some with PS CC, - to Photo album.

In the end my view was £10 a month was small given the huge timesaving I achieved with my workflow - instead of a shedload of images to review, sort, rate etc etc at the end of a trip, I get home with that done. For me, with my workflow, it actually put back a bit more fun into my hobby by removing a chore - and all for less than a pint of beer a week :)

That's not to say I like the subscription model at all, but understand why it came about. Also for me the Adobe cloud part of the subscription is completely disabled as I have no use for it. And if I only had time for using my camera occasionally, took a small number of images, then the cost may well be considered too high. I saw an article once - no idea how they found out - that there were many more pirated copies of PS about that purchased, so probably the same reason that Microsoft use subscription for Office 365? I wonder how many who complain about Adobe subscription model are upset 'cos there are no later ripoffs for there latest camera RAW :) ?

Well as a newcomer you certainly asked a question that will possibly get temperatures arising!

Delderby has good advice - I just switched to mirrorless after years of DSLR, and a primary consideration on what to buy was my existing pool of lenses. Its one thing to lose money on a body when you switch cameras, another thing altogether if you also switch lens mounts in the future and need to p/x lenses at a loss as well. I am very happy with mirrorless and would not go back to dslr

All the cameras you mention are excellent in their market segment and will give more than enough image quality (IQ) for most peoples needs. Full frame is the most flexible in varied light quality, cropped body is an excellent balance between size/cost and quality, and M4/3 is by far the most portable with excellent quality in reasonable light, but some can struggle in very low light.

I would add to Del of Derby: decide how big you are likely to enlarge your images - the bigger the print/ screen view the bigger the pixel count you'll need (round figures - A4/ letter sized prints/ 20" monitor, even with a bit of cropping then 20Mpx is a good starting point.) Then decide if you are likely to take photos in extreme light (ie lots of night/ low light photography then the bigger sensors have better low light capability.

Also I would strongly recommend a body with a viewfinder - although outer LCD screens are improving all the time, they still struggle badly in bright light. Also if using a long lens then holding well away from your body to view and frame the shot only adds to the big problem of camera shake. A viewfinder counters both those problems.

Finally, and perhaps the most important, go to a local photography store (not a general/dept store - they may have the model but seldom the assistant expertise to advise you) and try the cameras you are interested in, even if that means several trips. Take your own SD card and look at the images when you get home. I know its stating the obvious but actually testing a camera - size, weight, bulk, and seeing some images is a whole lot different from reading reviews.

Also see what 'kit' lens options are available. Typically (although by no means universally) the kit lens is a) a mid range, shortish zoom lens and b) cheaper as part of a kit than buying a body and lens separately. With a single lens in your armoury to start with look for a longish zoom. Zoom ranges vary by manufacturer but a 10x optical zoom is a great range for a first lens. 24-105 (4x zoom) if full frame, 24-140 (5+a bit x) or better still, 20-200 cropped body, 14-140 or better with M4/3. This way you have a good kit to get started.

Good luck

For anyone looking for a lens contender have a look at the Irix firefly 15mm f2.8. Another Chinese lens and very sharp, has autofocus / manual (unlike Rokinon which is manual only), and takes 95mm filters. For me this makes is ideal for super wide landscapes as well as astro.

I worked in a locksmiths for a few years as a student. The owner was fully trained, professionally registered, could make keys to locks without a master, pick most locks etc but he was realistic and often said that 'the majority of domestic security only keeps honest people out'. Perhaps not true today but certainly heading in the right direction.

If the criminal (or police as we have often seen on the TV :) don't care about damage or noise then most domestic property is vulnerable. Career thieves (I refuse to call them professional as they are anything but) typically steer clear of good security merely because there is an easier house to get into, maybe even next door. Random thieves - often after money for their next fix - don't care about damage, just want to grab small high value items such as our precious camera equipment and be away quickly.

I have cctv recording which occurred in the last 10 days of 3 sneak thieves with hoodies pinned together (looking almost like burkas ). One swinging off the cctv trying to yank it of the wall, while another keeps watch, and a third is trying the garage door. Fortunately they ran off when the the garage door vibration sensor triggered the high intensity lights and alarm. Excessive for home security - obviously not in my case as installed a while ago after a spate of burglary in our area. Phoned the police as the cctv footage clearly shows the camera swinger wasn't wearing gloves. Response: 'was there a break in, did they steal anything, any serious damage? If not then 'Ho hum'

I would suggest the career thief will know of fake security, and the random thief wouldn't care?

Fastone Viewer gets my vote for cheap (free), extensive and simple to use editing. I have lightroom and photoshop but probably 60+% of my editing is done with FSviewer - a brilliant free program with well implemented and easy to use editing functions, and a single menu. Just need to persuade FS to imlpement on Android :)

I use LR / PS mainly when I need RAW processing / layers/ fancy selection etc. FSviewer will process most RAW (although not the new canon CR3 yet) but doesn't have the same flexibility as a program costing £100+ per year! (there's a surprise :)