Should I even worry about RAW if printing in TIFF! (Page 6): Thank you.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

anotherview wrote:

In this case, B&W brings out better the sense of place -- likely because of lack of color distraction. The unnatural skin tones disappear in B&W, too, removing this distraction. Plus, the contrast and detail add to the effect. Finally, B&W gives an air of timelessness to the scene. A monotone color filter might enhance this feel.

Thank you.

Kuzano

julian.gang wrote:

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

That is a faulty assumption. Your Jpeg does not have the "overhead" that your RAW does. Jpeg is 8 bit content. RAW is much more. Converting a Jpeg to Tiff will never include all the information in the final TIFF, that converting RAW to a TIFF will. Your new TIIF from JPEG will always be a lesser file than your TIFF from RAW. The JPEG just does NOT have the content to make a TIFF that is as good as the TIFF made from RAW.

I don't do RAW at all, but I do agree that RAW will always have more information to work with, while JPEG will fall far short in converting to TIFF than doing it from RAW.

However TIFF from JPEG is surely the lazy mans way of creating a lesser TIFF and shouting out that you use TIFF, even though an inferior TIFF at best.

You Lose!

anotherview Loc: California

Same here: "I have always found them to be too bulky."

Blurryeyed wrote:

Yes, or you could just save a copy as a jpeg for editing and avoid the massive tiff file while storing the original in a folder that you don't use for editing. I really don't even know why I replied on this thread, I only shoot RAW for the obvious reasons and don't understand why anyone would convert a jpeg to a tiff file, maybe a tiff will better handle editing but I have always found them to be too bulky.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Raw and tiff are not comparable. Raw is a 12 or 14 bit per pixel digital negative...all images begin their life as RAW... they are converted in camera to another format if RAW is not chosen or available.

tiff and jpeg are just compression algorithms that are widely supported. jpeg uses a lossfull pixel averaging formula in only 8 bit ( though a higher res version is supposedly on the way) that , depending on compression amount chosen, makes similar colored pixels into the very same color to reduce file size. Under very high settings, images can visibly become patchy... every time a jpeg is saved, the same algorithm is applied all over again, gathering ever wider swatches of similarly colored pixels- subtle image details are lost forever. There is no argument about this- it’s just a fact. Tiff uses a lossless formula that does not lose data... but does not compress as much, nor is as widely supported. You can open work on and save in this format without loss of info....

It gets more complicated than that, especially In Work flow strategies... but they are not apples and oranges. but perhaps RAW is an apple seed the other two are apples, you use the one to make the others.

julian.gang

rmalarz wrote:

Julian, the camera actually does shoot RAW. The issue is that it doesn't provide a RAW file for output. It converts to another file format for output. Does your camera give you the option to save the files in .tif format? If so, that would be a slightly better way to go.
--Bob

The camera does not, but when I post-process the image then it can be converted and saved in the TIFF format with Lightroom. God love Lightroom!...Julian

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

julian.gang wrote:

The camera does not, but when I post-process the image then it can be converted and saved in the TIFF format with Lightroom. God love Lightroom!...Julian

Julian your camera absolutely does shoot raw and converts it to jpeg like every other digital camera. It just doesn't give you the ability to output a raw file. After all the dozens of posts trying to explain these concepts to you, you still don't seem to get it.

julian.gang

blackest wrote:

Have a look at the white balance setting in lightr... (show quote)

Both plus and minus, I guess though I should work with both so my statements would have some backbone!...Julian

julian.gang

mwsilvers wrote:

Julian your camera absolutely does shoot raw and converts it to jpeg like every other digital camera. It just doesn't give you the ability to output a raw file. After all the dozens of posts trying to explain these concepts to you, you still don't seem to get it.

My camera is a Sony DSC-HX400v, is what you are saying the camera simply does one of the steps for me by converting it to a JPEG in camera?...Julian

LysleJr Loc: American in Alabama

julian.gang wrote:

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

Then all photos are lies. All photos get some post processing.

Angmo

Well just to muck things up a bit, it’s just math. Raw holds more data than Jpeg. JPEGs are technically Tiff files with neutered detail. Just basic 256 bit color. Nothing that is even close to real tiff or raw.

Will ops camera shoot tiff? That would be superior to jpeg. But saving a Jpeg to tiff in post gives zero benefit.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

julian.gang wrote:

My camera is a Sony DSC-HX400v, is what you are saying the camera simply does one of the steps for me by converting it to a JPEG in camera?...Julian

YES!!! Finally!

srt101fan

Angmo wrote:

Well just to muck things up a bit, it’s just math. Raw holds more data than Jpeg. JPEGs are technically Tiff files with neutered detail. Just basic 256 bit color. Nothing that is even close to real tiff or raw.

Will ops camera shoot tiff? That would be superior to jpeg. But saving a Jpeg to tiff in post gives zero benefit.

It was already stated earlier that the OP's camera does not allow him to save TIFfs. WRT to the benefit of converting JPEG to TIFF, see Bill_de's earlier comment.

julian.gang

mwsilvers wrote:

YES!!! Finally!

Thanks...Julian