File Format Decision
Jun 23, 2019 10:22:04 #
larryepage wrote:
Hi. Thank you for your comments. br br Actually ... (show quote)
I do believe that a DNG file can be read by all, at least that was my experience.
Jun 23, 2019 10:28:15 #
larryepage wrote:
There have been a number of discussions on this si... (show quote)
Larry, if it works for you, go for it. The primary need in any workflow is to know precisely how it works and what it will and won’t do.
Raw isn’t a panacea. Working successfully with raw files requires a highly refined system, the elements of which are not obvious, and take time to set up and master.
JPEGs are great, WHEN you understand and stay within their limits — and the concept of, and workflow involved in pre-processing (controlling everything at the camera instead of in post-production).
14-bit or 16-bit TIFF files offer more latitude than 8-bit JPEGs, so they are more manageable in some circumstances. A TIFF workflow is a a good compromise between raw and JPEG.
Unfortunately, only a few cameras still offer TIFF as a file format option.
Jun 23, 2019 11:03:52 #
TriX wrote:
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.
And I've edited tiff files that have become larger than 1GB in size and close to 2GB. When using layers, they keep growing unless you use smaller selections when layering. That takes more time to do be does keep the files more manageable in size.
Jun 23, 2019 11:40:56 #
review file size of tiff vs raw. with all the camera formats I have3 used I find tiff files significantly larger that the origional raw file. (I mostly use lightroom rather than photoshop which can be a factor also)
Jun 23, 2019 12:06:53 #
If all your colleagues have Photoshop or Lightroom, which seems almost a given if you are working in 16 bit, a more flexible option would be to send a raw plus its associated sidecar file (assuming you do some post on the image) to assure uniformity across recipients. That will save you huge amounts of space plus all your sensor data.
Jun 23, 2019 13:05:25 #
larryepage wrote:
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.
No such option for TIFF on my D 7100.
Jun 23, 2019 13:12:14 #
Actually, from what I am reading, Tiffs in camera are always and only saved in 8 bit.
Jun 23, 2019 13:24:43 #
Thomas902 wrote:
btw, I actually know one very successful wedding shooter who only shoots in .jpeg. He uses Nikon gear and mentioned that Nikon's "Picture Control" affords him ample ability to fine tune his renderings in camera thus avoiding the time/expense of post processing... it works well for him and he's totally capable of dealing with post processing... again just saying...
btw, I actually know one very successful wedding shooter who only shoots in .jpeg. He uses Nikon gear and mentioned that Nikon's "Picture Control" affords him ample ability to fine tune his renderings in camera thus avoiding the time/expense of post processing... it works well for him and he's totally capable of dealing with post processing... again just saying...
.
Jun 23, 2019 13:28:59 #
burkphoto wrote:
Raw isn’t a panacea. Working successfully with raw files requires a highly refined system, the elements of which are not obvious, and take time to set up and master.
Raw isn’t a panacea. Working successfully with raw files requires a highly refined system, the elements of which are not obvious, and take time to set up and master.
......amen !.
Jun 23, 2019 15:19:55 #
One must consider the ups and downs of which file is best for which purpose. there is a pecking order for quality. The most information that can be saved is in a raw file, the least in a jpeg. Consider what is best for the situation.
When I shoot a photo, I know what It will mean to me. Casual photos at family gatherings will probably receive only causal glances, and can be saved as jpegs. Photos that i shoot that will be processed carefully and printed large mean I want to start with the very best, raw files.
Bear in mind that I am referring to what is saved on the memory card in the camera. I have cards that I have stored and not erased because of some images on them, in other cases the files are downloaded and the card reformatted.The first step in downloading is to dump the entire contents on three different hard drives, in the out of camera format. After that I will sort and process them and save as what ever, often a .psd file. After the best possible file is saved, i can always go back.
When I shoot a photo, I know what It will mean to me. Casual photos at family gatherings will probably receive only causal glances, and can be saved as jpegs. Photos that i shoot that will be processed carefully and printed large mean I want to start with the very best, raw files.
Bear in mind that I am referring to what is saved on the memory card in the camera. I have cards that I have stored and not erased because of some images on them, in other cases the files are downloaded and the card reformatted.The first step in downloading is to dump the entire contents on three different hard drives, in the out of camera format. After that I will sort and process them and save as what ever, often a .psd file. After the best possible file is saved, i can always go back.
Jun 23, 2019 15:20:51 #
TheShoe
Loc: Lacey, WA
f8lee wrote:
I believe you are completely mistaken in this assessment.
A raw file is not an image at all.
A raw file is not an image at all.
Poppycock. Any digital file is just a string of bits, ones and zeros. Software is needed to interpret those bits to the proper format for whatever they represent. It follows that raw is a digital image, it is just another way of encoding the data.
Jun 23, 2019 15:36:49 #
TheShoe wrote:
Poppycock. Any digital file is just a string of bits, ones and zeros. Software is needed to interpret those bits to the proper format for whatever they represent. It follows that raw is a digital image, it is just another way of encoding the data.
It seems to me, most people's definition of an image is something that can be viewed ....
.
Jun 23, 2019 15:52:55 #
A raw file can be viewed using some software, like ACR. A jpeg or tiff can be viewed using some software like PS or Bridge. So they are all bits. A jpeg can't be viewed any more than a raw file without a computer of some sort. The means to get from photons to memory card doesn't define what an image is.
In my humble opinion this is unnecessary nitpicking. A file is a file until PRINTED. Then it's an image.
In my humble opinion this is unnecessary nitpicking. A file is a file until PRINTED. Then it's an image.
Jun 23, 2019 16:31:49 #
TheShoe wrote:
Poppycock. Any digital file is just a string of bits, ones and zeros. Software is needed to interpret those bits to the proper format for whatever they represent. It follows that raw is a digital image, it is just another way of encoding the data.
The difference is that a raw file needs to be demosaiced in order to assign chroma and luma values to each pixel.
Jun 23, 2019 16:39:31 #
kymarto wrote:
The difference is that a raw file needs to be demosaiced in order to assign chroma and luma values to each pixel.
For me the difference is small. I shoot RAW + JPEG and when I first open the RAW file in the RAW converter it looks exactly like the JPEG. So if I like it that way I can simply make a save as in any file format.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.