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.

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.

I just looked at pages 115-118 of the D750 Operator's Manual. It appears that TIFF is not an option for the D750. I didn't look at the DF or the D7200, but would assume that it is the same for them, as well. This is an interesting development in the discussion, and I'll agree that it affects the value and usefulness of what I m trying to accomplish. Thank you for flagging this information. I do not have experience with those cameras, but presumed that they would be similar to the precedent from the D300.