For most of us, there is no advantage. RAW is the native format from the camera containing everything the camera was able to capture. When you edit the RAW file you save the edits as a JPEG for most uses. The RAW file should always remain untouched.

A TIFF file is a format that is not compressed, and as such can be edited over and over without losing information through multiple compressions. A JPEG is compressed each time you save it, and after many edits and saves it loses some noticeable quality.

Some houses / clients require a TIFF file format when making a submittal, but that is the exception for most of us. Since a TIFF is such a large file size, contains less information than a RAW file, and when printed is indistinguishable from a newly created JPEG, there is little reason to create or save files in the TIFF format.

That is not to say there are no advantages to TIFF. The most notable being it is a non-lossy file format that is universal (non-proprietary) and is not dependent on a camera or software vendor's support and periodic changes. Some folks worry about that. But most software vendors (notably Adobe's products) continually update and support all major camera RAW file formats.


Some houses / clients require a TIFF file format when making a submittal, but that is the exception for most of us. Since a TIFF is such a large file size, and it contains less information than a RAW file, and when printed is indistinguishable from a newly RAW to JPEG edit, there is little reason to create or save files in the TIFF format.

That is not to say there are advantages to TIFF. The most notable being it is a non-lossy file format that is universal (non-propritary) and is not dependent on a camera or software vendor's support and periodic changes.

For the most part you are correct. However, when scanning slides and saving, most times the choices are jpg, or tiff etc., not raw. So a tiff is better to save in and can be used as your original file. It would be a pain to rescan your original slide everytime you want to get a clean copy and edit.

Technically that is correct. Thanks for the additional information.

A finer point to note: Unless 35mm slides were taken with a high quality camera and lens, the image quality is typically too poor to benefit from saving the file as a TIFF (regardless of how high you set the scanner resolution). A large JPEG with 600dpi is usually more than enough for most home slides. Just save any edits as a new file. (But digital storage real estate is so cheap, so no harm in saving them as TIFFs.)

I'd agree with a dozen caveats and qualifications.
But as stated, that's not necessarily true.

Please keep in mind that many professional photographers do not usually shoot in RAW and prefer JPEG. (I said "many", but it is still decidedly a minority).
For them it is faster and easier when they know what they are doing and know what they want.
RAW offers so much more flexibility in post processing for modifications and improvements to the image but at the "time consuming cost" of having to process the file and generate a JPEG later.
I'm not sure there is a right answer for all aoocasions.

I tend to switch between three modes based on what I'm doing.

RAW - for a professional assignment and important events (like a wedding). All final selected images will go thru some post processing before presentation images are created.

RAW plus JPEG - Same as above, but when I will need some JPEGs right away, not shooting in burst mode (sporting events and active wildlife for example). Seems like the best of both worlds, but can slow down post processing. Probably the mode I use most often and my camera's "default" setting after every shoot.

JPEG - For casual photography, technical documentation or tasks that only require documentation not ultimate photographic excellence. Also for frequent high burst rates (sports, wildlife, and other fast action
).

I agree. It depends on what you you want to use it for.

I generally only save it as a virtual image (no physical file) in Lightroom so I can export it in any format or size needed directly to where I need it (publishing site, archive, e-mail, printer, photo website, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. )

It is hard to imagine anything more flexible and simple while not saving separate files with possibly a dozen variations, sizes and file formats.

It seems like most discussions of RAW and JPEG wind up discussing TIFF.

Even though LightRoom works using a proxy database and is almost perfect at this, I have had images lock and couldn't go back to the original. I therefore work from virtual copies. I just do not work on the original. (Actually, it is not an original because I convert to ding during download.

The other thing is TIFF. That lossless quality of a TIFF is more than it saves layers. It saves pixels. It is true that for the web, it must be converted to JPEG and sRGB. For most small prints it may not make much of a difference. I have a professional grade printer and go way beyond 8X12. Here there is often a tremendous difference. TIFF gives me the ability to retain so much more quality as the size of the image enlarges.

Keep this in mind. Most people do not. With my Nikons and with the Canons of friends, the conversion of RAW to JPEG represents a loss of about 85% of the pixel information. Yes, it is really that large.

My workflow is RAW and I stay there unless I go to Photoshop where I again go through ACR and then to TIFF. I retain the TIFF (or TIFFs). I will use them for printing unless I get down and dirty and go to Costco. They usually are limited to JPEG/sRGB.

If I print, it is TIFF and Adobe RGB. Ink can get expensive in large prints as can some of the fine art papers. I simply cannot settle for less.

If it goes to the web, it is JPEG/sRGB. And then I close my eyes and cross my fingers. Output is usually different than I had hoped.