Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

OK, thanks. I'm still wondering about mwsilvers' comment. Under what conditions would you have access only to Affinity's photo persona so that starting with a raw isn't going to work? But I don't want to lead the conversation away from the OP's question if this line isn't applicable, so I will await further developments

srt101fan

Linda, one scenario could be doing your RAW development in one program and the remaining processing in another.

For one reason or another, I've not felt comfortable with Affinity's Development module. So, if I ever get back to my digital images, I'm thinking of using the Nikon software for RAW development, exporting TIFFs, and doing final processing in Affinity.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Perfect, thanks Pete. You answered as I was typing (see above your comment) that I was willing to wait for more input from the OP

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Linda, unless something has changed in both applications recently the conversion occurs when you leave ACR in the case of PhotoShop, and Develop in the case of Affinity. Both PhotoShop and Affinity's Photo persona do not work on raw files directly. In any case, the point I was trying to make was unless you are editing a file in a pixel editor that does not support raw editing then it is best to extract deep shadow detail from the original raw file. I mentioned PhotoShop and the Photo persona of Affinity only as examples. It is best to extract deep shadow detail from the original raw file in a raw converter/processor like Lightroom, ACR, Capture One Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, and yes even Affinity's Develop persona, although it is a very limited bare bones raw processor.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Linda, I think I make have inadvertently caused some confusion for you. If so I apologize. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't edit a raw file in Develop before transferring it to Photo. That would be the preferred way to go, or even better use a higher quality full featured raw processor and then send it to Affinity. As I also mentioned just above this, the question the OP asked was whether using a tiff file to extract deep shadow details would provide similarly good results as using a raw file. My point was that the only reason to use a tiff file rather than a raw file would be if the editor being used did not support raw.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

And process the file all over again each time? That doesn't seem like a very efficient approach.

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

Neither does saving as tif, a large file.

You don’t have to reprocess every time. Do it once and save the jpg for future use.

If you want to change the edit later it’s best to have the original data file.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What do you mean by process over again each time? Most raw processors save all the edits to a raw file in a database and in sidecar files. You can even continue editing from the point you left off...forever! There is never a need to re-edit raw images from scratch. The very limited functionality of the Affinity Photo Develop persona is one the few exceptions to that. I edit raw files 100% of the time and only export to tiff when I want to use features in programs that don't support raw files, like the Nik Collection.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

First, NO, I don't have Elements.

My editing experience is limited in some ways. I have mostly worked with JPG files. But I have encountered times where I have seen lost detail in shadows, or the darker portions of the image. So I experimented with DPP4 on a RAW file but got no better results. I suspected that DPP4 may not be powerful enough, or I'm not familiar enough with it. So I thought I might try converting the RAW file with DPP4 to something lossless then editing it in another editor. My copy of Photoshop is quite old, it is version 7 and I haven't even tried to work a RAW file from my 80D thinking it wouldn't have the CODEC.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

This is what you can do with raw files. You can't do it with jpegs and you can't do as well with tiff files. Select download to view them at full resolution.

Crop of original raw image

(Download)

Original raw edited to extract detail from deep shaded areas.

(Download)

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

The quick answer is maybe. Converting to an uncompressed 16 bit raster file will help preserve whatever detail was originally captured. The lossless nature of uncompressed files like tiff and psd addresses the fact that neither will lose data when the file is opened, edited and saved, unlike jpeg, which allows extreme compression without serious impacts to image quality, but trades off future editing capability when files are opened/edited/saved repeatedly. When used optimally - saved with the least amount of compression - images will suffer the least amount of damaging loss.

The other factor is the nature of shadow detail. There is not a lot of information in deep shadows. Pushing and pulling the image data in post processing will also push and pull the noise. A 16 bit file "can" have more gradations than the corresponding jpeg, so theoretically it should be able to reveal detail better than a jpeg without banding and/or loss of contrast and sharpness. However, the original raw file has a better chance when processed in a decent (current) raw converter than either a jpeg or even a 16 bit uncompressed raster file.

DPP, is ok, but for better/more "adjustability" - software like DXO Photolab, Capture One, On1 Raw and ACR (Lightroom/Photoshop) - generally offer wider and more granular adjustments, and masking for useful local adjustments.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

In answer not only to this, but previous posts: Tiff is not equal to RAW in terms of processing potentialities. Tiff is an image file, not a pure data file. It is a universally recognized image format that defines each pixel in terms of its chroma and luma values, so that any image-displaying application will know how to color and light each pixel in the image. RAW is raw sensor data, and pixel values exist as potentialities in relation to each other. Once those values are defined and fixed by an image editor, then all the other potentialities are discarded.

Consider a print from a negative: no matter how good a print is, making another print by taking a picture of that will never have the potentiality of printing again from the original negative. But you can't display the negative, or even see the image really. You need a print. Think of the Tiff (or a jpg) as a print. The Tiff has much more data stored, and is not lossy, meaning that pixels are never defined as clumps, but as individual pixels. You can save a lot of space by defining groups of pixels together and giving them the same values. This is what jpg does. Tiff treats pixels as individual.

But there is another level here, and that is bit depth. Tiffs can be saved as 8 bit of 16 bit (also 32 bit, but that is a different story). 16 bit Tiffs still define pixels individually, but with more accuracy. Instead of having one of 256 values, it defines each pixel in terms of 65.536 discrete values for luminosity and for each color channel. It is like having much more resolution. Therefore 16 bit images are much more amenable to post processing, because there are many more in-between values for each pixel.

The reason to make a Tiff is so that you don't have to make it all again from scratch from the RAW every time you need it. And the reason to make it Tiff is so that it is the highest possible quality, that will not further lose quality with subsequent adjustments. Personally I always keep the RAWs, but then I have separate folders of 16 bit Tiffs, so if someone requests an image for some use I can pull it from there immediately. 16 bit Tiffs can be processed pretty radically for different uses, for example if they are needed lighter or darker of with slightly different colors. And all those images are immediately viewable without having to open in a raw editor, which displays them according to its own interpretation of what the pixel values should be. But even so, and even though 16 bit Tiffs are much larger than RAW files, they do not have anywhere near the potential for editing that RAWs do.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I think so, it's what I usually do, I use DPP to do basic adjustment and convert to TIFF and then use PSP for final editing and save as JPG. I find it a convenient easy workflow.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks Paul!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Why?
Keep the Raw for the data.
Then as needed save as a JPEG for viewing, sharing or printing.
TIFF would just be taking up space for nothing.