larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There have been a number of discussions on this site discussing the advantages of capturing images as raw files versus JPEG. I've participated in some of them, and a few have become pretty unpleasant or even militant in nature. While I've been focusing on other areas than this forum, I've been reviewing my position on that topic (I added raw/NEF as one of my file formats a year and a half or so ago) and have decided that my choice at that time was suboptimal. The result will be another change in the way I record and save images.

This is a big change, of course, but careful evaluation indicates that it will be better than what I'm doing now in all respects, with only one minor disadvantage. When my D500 is returned from Nikon service in a week or so (it's waiting on parts from Japan right now) and has to be set up again, it will be the first of my cameras which will be exclusively saving images as TIFF files. If there are no snags encountered, the D810 and D850 will follow pretty quickly.

Here's a quick summary of the top reasons for this significant change:

1. File depth will be 16 bits rather than 14.

2. Both uncompressed and lossless compressed formats are available.

3. When using multiple cameras or collaborating with others, all files will be of identical format, other than resolution, which is handled transparently.

4. Anyone will be able to view the files, since TIFF is a universally adopted and available format.

5. All camera setup options (pre-processing) will be immediately visible to whoever views the files.

6. Any editor can be used for post processing. No issue with waiting for new raw formats to be recognized. Movement from one editor/processor to another will be completely transparent.

7. All post processing actions will be incorporated directly into the file. (Yes...a copy will be made for editing and the original retained.)

8. No file conversion will be required for presentation to the printer. File conversion from raw has produced some very problematic results in specific circumstances in the past.

The only disadvantage I have discovered to this point is that none of my camera bodies support saving a second file type along with TIFF files. It is a committed choice. It is possible to save backups to a second memory card in those bodies that support dual cards. But if JPEGs should be needed for some reason, they will have to be created and saved later. Not a big deal, since almost every editor has a "Save As" function.

Individual files will be slightly larger than raw files, but in today's world of low memory prices, that's a pretty weak reason for not choosing this option.

I'll be tracking how this goes. I'm also a little uncertain about whether to make the change on the D300 and D300s. Might not be worth it. I'll have to do a little more experimenting on that part of the puzzle, and might just have one or both of them set up for the times that is known that JPEGs are needed.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

This is an inappropriate comparison between the bit depth of a TIFF file and raw file. It's an apples to bell peppers comparison. The bit depths of those two file types do not compare in terms of the data they store. The raw file stores data linearly and the TIFF file does not.

Joe

Quixdraw Loc: x

No dog in the fight - just a question. I don't have D500 yet, but have 3 other relatively current Nikon digital cameras which I am fairly familiar with. I do not find any in camera option for saving as a TIFF. Where is that option in the menu system?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I think depending on TIFF instead of raw is a mistake.
TIFF is an image format. The image will have a white balance baked into it. Since it could be 16 bits, you will have more latitude to adjust white balance on a TIFF than you would have on an 8 bit jpg, but not nearly as much latitude as you would have with a raw file.

What's wrong with shooting raw instead of TIFF? All the good editors I am aware of will read a wide variety of raw files. The "new camera" problem can be solved using dng until such time as the editor catches up to the new camera.

dwermske

Also no dog in this fight either - sounds like you have already made your decision. I agree with "DirtFarmer", I think you are making a mistake however, it's your mistake to make. Good luck with it.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

On all of my Nikons, it is one of the options in the Setup menu. It's in the same place where you tell the camera to save as JPEG, Raw, Raw+JPEG, etc. In some cases, it is at the end of the list. In others, it is buried in the middle of it.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Hi. Thank you for your comments.

Actually TIFF is a file format ("Tagged Image File Format"), or container, for several different types of image files. Nikon's TIFF option is clearly labelled as TIFF RGB, which means that Nikon has chosen to package the file as a "Deep Color" RGB file. 16 bit TIFF means 16 bits per channel (or color) so the stored image is represented with 48 bits per pixel. While it is true that some advertising overstates the dynamic capacity of these files, it is nonetheless true that the depth of the file exceeds the capability of current sensors and far exceeds all displays and printers.

My goal is improved compatibility among a group of photographers and cameras, as well as elimination of situations which produced very undesirable artifacts as encountered when printing images captured in very low light situations in the recent past. At this point, I am not promoting this option as optimal for everyone, but for me, it carries the distinct advantages which I listed in my original post. There may be others for whom it would offer similar advantages. And...having the file represent white balance and other parameters as originally exposed is a big plus for me, not a negative.

Please remember two more important facts...almost all raw formats are derivative of the TIFF standard, and no file is itself an image...just data that can be recomposed by a viewer into an image.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

My question would be how large is the TIFF file compared to the 14 bit raw? It’s not so much a question of card capacity, but rather how does it affect the burst rate and max number of exposures in a burst? In my experience, my TIfFS have been 4-5x the size of my raw files, and I would expect that to affect burst rate/size as it takes longer to write the file. What has been your experience?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I rarely shoot bursts, so this has not been a significant concern for me. As a result, I have not measured the impact. For someone who routinely does, I'd certainly suggest that they determine whether this would be a reason not to use this option. I also rarely come close to filling a memory card, so file size is overall not an issue, nor is space occupied on my computer's drive. My experience has been that TIFF files are generally no more than 20% larger than uncompressed raw files. They also do not grow when edited, as raw files many times do, because each pixel is already represented...no bytes have to be added when changes are made...only changed bits within the existing file structure. If storage were ever to become a problem, a lossless compressed option could be chosen, I suppose, but I have not seen that the cameras offer that choice for the original exposure.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I think you’ll have to do some actual tests to determine the numbers, but as an example (and this is dependent on both the raw file and the PP application), I just took a 32MB raw CR2 file, and using DPP (Canon Digital Photo Professional), I exported it to Photoshop as a TIFF, which was 65MB (a 2x increase in size), and I have seen 160 MB TIFFs, hence the reason for my comment.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Having stated my thoughts on TIFF/raw, I will agree that it's your choice to make.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

I believe you are completely mistaken in this assessment.

A raw file is not an image at all. It is the data stream from the imaging chip. remember that the individual photosites on that chip are each covered with either a Red, Green or Blue filter, and thus only count the number of photons of that frequency which the filter allows through. An image file (in any format) defines the specific RGB values at each pixel. That is the crucial and fundamental difference.

In order to become an actual image, a raw file must be assembled in a process often called de-mosaicing. The software (either built into the camera or smart phone, etc.) makes the determination of the RGB values at a specific pixel based on the counts from the adjacent photosites. There is no "look up table" to calculate that a given set of readings leads to a particular RGB value. This is very different than actual image files, including TIFF and JPEG, in that every pixel in the image is defined with a specific RGB value (the one derived in the de-mosaicing process), and the computer uses a look up table to determing what color to show on the screen (or what ink to spit at the dot) to make the color assigned in the look up table..

Bottom line, you are still relying entirely on the computer in the camera to do that de-mosaic process - the fact you are saving as TIFF merely means that the image file (for at this time it is indeed an image file) won't be altered due to lossy protocols when being saved. It is generally agreed that different de-mosaicing programs can ctually create (slight) differences in colors when demosaicing the same file - for instance, using Capture One on a give raw file and taking that same file through Lightroom/ACR or Photos or whatever can lead to shading differences.

The entire concept of saving in raw is merely to give the photographer the greatest level of flexibility when defining the final output - PP programs enable you to make the desired changes and then share the image with otherrs (or, for that matter, with your printer) by exporting the demosiaiced image as an image file.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Quixdraw Loc: x

Not in a DF, D750, D7200 unless there is a secret handshake. Whatever works for you.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Whatever floats your boat. But you are probably limiting your options using a rasterized image vs raw data.