RAW vs TIFF (Page 3): Space is cheap these days, and TIFFs are much more amenable to modifications than JPG, if adjustment is needed depending on the use of the image, instead of...

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Architect1776 wrote:

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.

Space is cheap these days, and TIFFs are much more amenable to modifications than JPG, if adjustment is needed depending on the use of the image, instead of starting the whole process again from the RAW.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Linda From Maine wrote:

I might be mis-understanding your comment. Affinity, like PS Elements, lets you move your raw file from the raw developing section to the photo editing section without conversion. Only when you're ready to save, do you have to select a new file type (psd, afphoto, jpg and the rest).

Linda, on Canon I take pictures saving both JPEG and Raw, but on Hasselblad with Phase One back, when I put the Compact Disc in the computer it opens the files (in Elements) as TIFF. I think PhotoShop automatically converts them to TIFF--or does Phase One just use TIFF as its raw image when shooting? I was told previously that if you use Phase One backs you must use their proprietary editing software, but Elements works fine. Elements may have added Phase One to Elements later. If I use Hasselblad's free editor Phocus, the images are also in TIFF, but Canon images in JPEG also work there...

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

kymarto wrote:

Space is cheap these days, and TIFFs are much more amenable to modifications than JPG, if adjustment is needed depending on the use of the image, instead of starting the whole process again from the RAW.

True, space is cheap.
True, tif is much more amenable to modifications than jpg.

But if adjustment is needed, better to start from the raw than a previously converted image file. If it's a minor adjustment, using a parametric editor will allow you to start from the same point at which you left the tif file, but with more potential if the needed adjustments are significant. With a parametric editor, there's no time savings in starting with a tif.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Not understanding the having to do it all over again. The raw is untouched and the adjustments will always be there to apply when you need to export as a JPG TIFF GIF etc.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

sodapop wrote:

Not understanding the having to do it all over again. The raw is untouched and the adjustments will always be there to apply when you need to export as a JPG TIFF GIF etc.

Personally, I do not save changes to the RAW image, If I want to reprocess I WANT to start over!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

FYI - RAW image data is read-only. No one 'saves' changes to RAW, even when using the manufacturer's editing software. At best, say with Canon DPP, the edit instructions are saved as addition text to the header of the RAW file, the read-only data cannot be changed. Also, those edit instructions are proprietary to the software that wrote them. Other RAW editors opening the same file do not 'see' these instructions.

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

CHG_CANON wrote:

FYI - RAW image data is read-only. No one 'saves' changes to RAW, even when using the manufacturer's editing software. At best, say with Canon DPP, the edit instructions are saved as addition text to the header of the RAW file, the read-only data cannot be changed. Also, those edit instructions are proprietary to the software that wrote them. Other RAW editors opening the same file do not 'see' these instructions.

The only exception I can think of is a dng file assuming you consider a dng file a raw file. Edits to a dng file change the preview embedded in the dng file.

Edits involving a dng file DO NOT change the raw data, only the embedded preview. The file is changed, but the data are not.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Architect1776 wrote:

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.

When sending or taking files to my custom printer, I never use JPEGs. We always sit down and review to see if there is anything in the content that might be problematic. Because of my vision limitations, they also serve as a final check for anything that I might have missed or gotten wrong.

We've discovered that its best to have more than even a Fine/Large JPEG for our routine.

I have also learned that it is necessary to keep a close eye on some TIFF export routines. I have discovered undesirable artifacts in the deep shadows of some images exported as TIFFs in LightRoom. So far, I've not seen the problem in midtones and highlights. And to this point, the only solution discovered has been to export in a different format.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Lightroom saves the changes in a sidecar file and applies them upon export. .That same photo can be exported as many times as necessary in JPG, TIF etc. The photo does not have to be reedited each time

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Charles 46277 wrote:

Linda, on Canon I take pictures saving both JPEG and Raw, but on Hasselblad with Phase One back, when I put the Compact Disc in the computer it opens the files (in Elements) as TIFF. I think PhotoShop automatically converts them to TIFF--or does Phase One just use TIFF as its raw image when shooting? ...

A quick Google search says: Phase One enables users to output files into a number of different formats including TIFF, DNG, PNG, PSD and four types of JPEG.

I would be very surprised if PS Elements automatically converts a file type upon opening. My experience - and that of many others here - is that once PSE's version of ACR is no longer supported/updated, if you buy a new-to-market camera, PSE can't open the raw.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

DirtFarmer wrote:

The only exception I can think of is a dng file assuming you consider a dng file a raw file. Edits to a dng file change the preview embedded in the dng file.

Edits involving a dng file DO NOT change the raw data, only the embedded preview. The file is changed, but the data are not.

Agreed that the read-only RAW data is not edited. Updating the DNG 'header' is analogous to Canon DPP writing edit instructions directly into the CR2/CR3 RAW files, just that Adobe stuffs even more into that 'header' (overhead) area.

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

sodapop wrote:

Lightroom saves the changes in a sidecar file and applies them upon export. .That same photo can be exported as many times as necessary in JPG, TIF etc. The photo does not have to be reedited each time

LR keeps the edits in the catalog. LR will write the edits into a sidecar file if it is told to do so (in the Preferences). The sidecar file helps other programs to read the edits. (I suspect the utility of the sidecar file is limited to Adobe products because every editor uses it's own algorithms in the editing so the numeric values in the sidecar file do not necessarily apply directly to non-Adobe editors).

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

DirtFarmer wrote:

LR keeps the edits in the catalog. LR will write the edits into a sidecar file if it is told to do so (in the Preferences). The sidecar file helps other programs to read the edits. (I suspect the utility of the sidecar file is limited to Adobe products because every editor uses it's own algorithms in the editing so the numeric values in the sidecar file do not necessarily apply directly to non-Adobe editors).

They're a mix of usefulness. The rotation and keywords are universal, probably the crop amount too, definitely star and color ratings. I don't have enough 'other' software to test how much is transferred. But, I regularly pick-up these settings into LR coming from other software that also create sidecars.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

PHRubin wrote:

If I convert a RAW file to TIFF rather than JPG, do I have the same options of salvaging detail in deep shadows as the original RAW file?

There is no advantage to converting raw to tiff. Think of raw files as negatives for film. You wouldn't throw away your negatives would you?

Your raw files should be stored and cataloged forever. When you process them using Photoshop, it's best to save the layered file as a psd or tif. The reason for saving the processed file now as either a psd or tif is that you will retain all the layers that you created during processing. When you need to share a picture on social media, print the picture, or email a picture, then you can save it as a jpg (compressed image). You would be smart to keep the raw like you would a negative. Then you'd be smart to save the processed file as a psd or tif forever too so that you can go back and edit just the layer that you need to edit in the future should your photoshop skills improve etc. Then you can do whatever you like with your jpg's but I tend to keep 99% of those as well.

User ID

sodapop wrote:

Not understanding the having to do it all over again. The raw is untouched and the adjustments will always be there to apply when you need to export as a JPG TIFF GIF etc.

Yes, there seems to be a weird belief in this thread. “Starting all over” or “from scratch” comments keep popping up.