dave.m

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!)

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Anything is possible in the photographic world according to some of the CSI shows.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I have scanned in photos as well as early jpeg files from 2005 (scanned in photos from the 1960's) this is where this application comes in handy.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

While clever, seems backward to me, only reason I can think of not to shoot straight RAW is to shoot RAW & JPEG Fine. I can afford a few larger memory cards (they have become so reasonable, makes me smile) so why not shoot RAW or RAW & JPEG all the time. Not picking, yes sounds clever, probably does a decent job, but I can get at least a gig of high quality memory cards for $79, maybe more, even at B&H (which reminds me that I need to go back and pull the trigger on a couple). Thanks for the info. I suppose I will try it at some point as an open minded person.

I did chuckle on the "Witchcraft" comment!!!

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Hooray, we have a winner. I've said before that jpeg is more misunderstood than raw and it's capabilities understated and limitations overstated ad nauseam by those wearing the raw Tshirt.

Yes. The world if stuffed with fantastic images processed and printed in jpg format. I think a lot of folks don't know how to process a jpg. For example, many times I've read that you can't fix white balance except in a raw format. That's not close to true. Over and over it's said if you plan to edit your images you need to shoot in raw... That's also not close to true. Also it's always said jpgs have way less data, throws away tons of data... not often true. Jpg compression mostly encode colors that are too similar for the eye to differentiate as the same color. The amount of dissimilarity is determined by the compression level. Also, if you repeatedly compress the compressed file, jpg will continue to encode similar colors so eventually, the picture can begin to degrade. There is no reason to do this, so it is a non-issue, that is repeatedly preached as a jpg flaw.

It may be true raw can give you a bit more latitude, BUT, 99% of the time you will never be able to tell the difference between a raw and a jpg processed file. This is almost 100% the case when looking at pics on a monitor or tv screen. Prints can be more iffy but most of those problems are from your printer, printer set up and so on. Prints are [almost] a thing of the past. Few pictures are printed any more, and unless you are doing crazy stuff in PS, the print will be just fine, particularly if sent out to a print shop.

morkie Loc: Simi Valley CA

be sure to check their system requirements - you need a fairly new multicore processor and 2Gb video card - they list specific cards that fit minimum requirements - my 2015 MacBook Pro doesn't

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I looked at the date and it is not April 1! So it must be another bright idea from marketing.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Most better scanners record 16 bits per color channel (48 bits per pixel) in TIFF format. That’s really plenty.

If you want a raw file, whip out your camera, macro lens, and a precision copy setup. That’s what I do for film.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

LOL , with AI you CAN .....

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

My original reply went into cyberspace... The original file is the best representation of data you have. Any other juju can 'change' it, to highlight whatever parts you might want to 'improve'.

Adding information that isn't in the original may improve the appearance, but should be regarded as such. It is unlikely that the conversion will accommodate subtle lighting in some obscure areas.

With a trial period, check the feature with images having unusual lighting or highlights and see how it works. Caveat emptor...

Dik

was_a_guru

So with trial version do some experiments. Camera on tripod. Well lit and colorful subjects.

Take picture using RAW + JPEG. Use Topaz to convert the JPEG version to RAW. Compare to original RAW version from camera. See if you notice any differences.

Since pictures was taken at the same time there should be no lighting difference to skew result. So comparison would be valid.

sbohne

A lot of people said similar things about Photoshop v 1.0. Do you still have a rotary dial phone that you use to answer your pager signal while watching your b/w tv?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I think you should read up more on CIZ - AFAIK, it is closer to AI than not - and is most certainly proprietary to Sony !

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

Although it does not transform jpgs into raw, Photoshop Elements (and I imagine Photoshop as well) will open a jpg in ACR and you can apply edits only possible in ACR, then take the image back to PSE or PS and finish editing.
I'd be curious to see a comparison between PSE Open as ACR, and the process used by Topaz, in an actual photo.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Get Pro Camera for an iPhone. It lets you shoot in RAW.