Leitz Loc: Solms

It appears to me that I can convert an unedited RAW file to TIFF, and do as much or more editing on that TIFF file as could have been done on the RAW file. Or am I all wet?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Where editors are concerned, TIFF will be more widely compatible than whatever proprietary RAW format you start with. Then again, you have to have a compatible editor to convert your RAW to TIFF in the first place. But if you convert to TIFF, you will have a wider choice of editors at your disposal.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

You will be able to edit quite a bit, but no, you will not have all the editing capabilities that editing a raw file will afford you.

For example, you can do more with white balance, and details in shadows with a raw file. You can recover blown out highlights easier in raw files.

Exporting as JPG or TIF is simple at any point from a raw.

Remember, raw is all the data from the camera's sensor, unprocessed.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You might not have a good grasp of the conceptual difference between a "RAW file" and a "TIFF file".

The camera produces raw sensor data and saves it in the RAW file. That is not image data. The raw sensor data does not define a specific image, and it cannot be viewed or edited as an image. The data encodes color using a Bayer Color Filter Array, which has a strange property of not saving a specific value of color for a specific image pixel location! Instead there are many (nearly an infinite variety) of valid values, and to have an image that can be viewed or edited means deciding which of the potential values is going to be used. That process is known as "converting", but technically it is demosaicing or interpolation. A matrix (commonly 4x4 or greater) of values from nearby sensor locations are used to generate the specific values for each pixel. Hence editing is not really possible because changing the raw data value at a given location does different things to many pixel values. Ultimately, raw sensor data is never edited. It is converted to an RGB image format, and the RGB format is edited.

TIFF and JPEG are different RGB image formats, as are PNG, GIF, PPM and others. They all encode color into three channels, one each for red, green and blue. The data defines one specific image. It can be viewed and it can be edited because changing one specific value for a given pixel affects only that value and only that pixel.

However, your question probably isn't really what you stated (and isn't about editing a RAW file), but most likely should be about editing the RGB image at the time it is created by a RAW converter, before it is saved as a TIFF formatted file.

With TIFF files it really doesn't make any difference, as long as the TIFF is a 16-bit depth format. It is exactly the same data that the RAW converter works on. And that is true because TIFF uses lossless compression.

JPEG is the other most commonly used RGB image file format, and it uses lossy compression, as well as being an 8-bit format. The effect is that once the RAW converter writes it's RGB information to the JPEG file... it can never be recovered exactly as it was!

That basically means a TIFF format works best for intermediate files, which will be futher edited. And JPEG should be limited to the final product as it will be displayed or printed.

Chefneil

Apafla, that is one of the the best and concise definitions of the way RAW files work that I have seen so far in my limited experience. I understood the basics of RAW vs. .Tiff, vs. .Jpeg on a technical platform: Raw is what the camera sees, while .Tiff and Jpeg is what we work on and print with. Now I can see it it.

Thanks!


olc

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Thank you for the nice comment!

Leitz Loc: Solms

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm using ViewNX 2, saving as TIFF, and will be comparing editing software soon. It's good to know I'm on the right track. :)

Leitz Loc: Solms

I appreciate the information. Looks like my next project is to go out and shoot in bad light, over and underexpose, and determine the limits of what I can do in post. Thanks for keeping me off the street. :lol:

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

:)

If you have been using View NX2, you might want to look at other raw converters/editors.

Free raw editors....:

Gimp, Darktable, Raw Therapee, Lightzone.

Gimp is a Photoshop "clone", Darktable, Lightzone & Raw Thereapee are Lightroom "clones" but are pretty good.

Nikon now also gives away Capture NX-D, but it seemed a bit flaky to me when I looked at it... Version 2.0 might end up better.

Leitz Loc: Solms

I consider that I had a pretty good concept of the different files, but your explanation is the clearest I've read. And I had not before heard of raw sensor data being converted to an RGB image format. Thanks for that information, and also for confirming that I have been right in saving 16-bit TIFFs. Now I can spend more time photographing and less at the computer! :)

Leitz Loc: Solms

I have Capture NX-D and Capture NX 2, but haven't yet tried either. ViewNX 2 seems quite good for properly exposed files, but bright skies are always going to be a problem for much of what I do. Graduated ND filters are only useful for limited scenes, I cannot do HDR in RAW and that old Indian who's been trying to teach me a rain dance is a quack, so I will need some additional editing software.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

For what its worth....

My workflow is shoot in raw, import into Lightroom, select keepers from the NEF files, delete all the non- keeper NEF files from Lightroom, convert the remaining NEF keepers into DNG files, use Lightroom to edit the DNG files, some will get edited in Photoshop and/or use various Topaz plugins for specific tasks, stitch panorama shots into TIF files and stack in Lightroom with the original DNG files that make up the panorama. Output TIF or JPG files from the original DNG files.

The DNG files remain within Lightroom as original files to be edited differently if needed.

By keeping the DNG's, I can easily start from scratch again on any picture, or select a starting point at any point during the previous edit.

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

What Apaflo said

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

I agree-very well done. When I first started this journey, everywhere I turned I kept hearing RAW. I was really scared because I didn't really understand it. I finally took the "belt & suspenders" approach by shooting RAW + JPEG. I had already discovered Lightroom and was really starting to "get it". Finally, I let go of the JPEG (training wheels/security blanket) and I haven't looked back. Since my retirement I have really been getting into this fascinating hobby and find the knowledge base as bottomless as the one for computers. In fact, these two technologies are great friends. The Hog is a great resource because there is little that hasn't already been encountered by someone out there. And the ones who are willing to share insure the future. Thanks, Bob

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Here is a converter that takes into consideration the particular camera. This one is freeware ... they have some conversions that they sell, eg PDF to JPEG etc....
http://www.easy2convert.com/raw2tiff/

I do not have a clue if it works well. Sort of a reply to one of the comments above by R.G.