julian.gang

This question still has me wondering why people seem to be crazy about RAW?...Julian

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RAW usually allows more (better) control over picture parameters.
I make the changes in my RAW editor and then save as JPEG (or TIFF).

srt101fan

Julian, I don't think the reasons for shooting RAW have anything to do with TIFF. You should go back and review recent discussion re the advantages RAW can give you.

julian.gang

The problem is, if it really is one my camera only shoots in JPEG. But if I convert my JPEGs to TIFF do you even need to worry about RAW?...Julian

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

To work with a RAW file your camera has to create it for you. You cannot convert a TIFF or JPEG to RAW.
RAW is ALL of the picture data the camera makes. Some cameras do not provide RAW files. So in that case, no.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

The OP has not mentioned what camera is used, but previous posts indicate a Sony DSC-HX400v, which evidently doesn’t provide raw files.
Without a raw file, one doesn’t know what they are missing, assuming they have the knowledge to take advantage of it.

srt101fan

I agree with Longshadow (edit: and GoofyNewfie). If your camera doesn't allow you to save RAW files, then RAW is not an issue for you.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Raw is the preferred way to 'CAPTURE' an image. Doing so gives much latitude to the post-processing efforts. Printing the image comes at the end of the processing workflow.

If your camera does not capture raw images, it's a moot point.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Julian,

A RAW file type gives you the opportunity to use many more tones of color than the JPEG file type. All photographs are composed of tones of color and a JPEG, an 8-bit file, is composed of fewer colors than a RAW type file, a 16-bit file. Since both types of files hold thousands and thousands of colors you might say, why does it matter? It matters because the gradation of the tones throughout the image are smoother and create a more pleasing look and also a more colorful look. We don't actually realize it for the most part when viewing, but it is there and we react to it. You can, at times, see bands of colors in the sky of a JPEG file and this is what happens when there are not enough tones of color in an image so that they can spread throughout the image in a graceful fashion. Thus, a RAW file allows me more latitude in processing since the file will handle the changes better.

julian.gang

Okay, I think now I have knowledge of what RAW and TIFF are and aren't! I have access to Lightroom and what it does to a photograph! If I can make myself happy with what Lightroom and Photoshop does, stick with that!!!!!!!!!!!!...Julian

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

blackest Loc: Ireland

If you haven't got an option to shoot in Raw, then it's not something that can be applied to your work flow.
You have an 8 bit jpeg file. You don't have the color accuracy that is in a raw file.
It's best to keep the jpeg as uncompressed as possible.

If you think of it in terms of measurement then raw would be say centimeters and millimeters (10 millimeters per centimeter)
so if you were measuring say 40.7 cm (raw) jpeg would round to 41 cm and call it close enough.

A highly compressed jpeg might just call it 40cm for amy value between 38cm to 42cm when it comes to photos most of those approximate values are close enough to not detract from the image. Unless that is you have an area such as blue sky which would vary from a light blue to a darker blue.

In this case approximate colors doesn't cut it you can see the jump between shades of blue and this tends to be called banding or posterization.
either way its noticeable and ugly.

Thats one of the situations its nice to have a raw file.

The thing with tiff is you have 2 choices for resolution 8 bit or 16 bit (cm or cm +mm). If you are doing any kind of post-processing you will be altering pixel values (other than cropping which mostly make each pixel cover a larger area in the final print which in most cases has no visible effect)
In 8 bit mode you are still working to the nearest cm) in 16 bit mode you can adjust to the mm level and smooth the transition between adjacent colors. Even if you finally output in 8 bit format it should still be closer to looking clean than if you had worked with 8bit values.

So saying many people process in 8 bit photoshop elements and they get good results most of the time. it's mostly pretty unnoticeable except in the areas prone to banding. So yes a technically better result but maybe only you will see the difference.

If you upload to facebook all that effort can be wasted e.g I had a photo of two chimps with a lot of shades of dark gray all that detail was lost as facebook compressed to one shade of dark gray...

julian.gang

I know this has been said before, but isn't any post-processing, processing a lie?...Julian

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

No.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

If you're camera saves in raw, ABSOLUTELY. If not, no. A raw file has all the data to work with when editing. After editing you want to save as tiff. A tiff is a huge file with all the data. It is not compressed like a jpeg. Going from jpeg to tiff, does nothing but make a bigger file.

Some printers want only a tiff file, that would be the only reason to convert jpg to tiff. A tiff converted from jpg will be no better than the jpg.

Imho.