TIFF vs raw (Page 3): If you don't have other software that is less time and effort, then so be it. So PSP is Paint Shop Pro, right?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

bobmcculloch wrote:

Tried Adobe products years ago, HATED them! plus I don't have a monthly bill with PSP, and DPP comes with Canon for their RAW file, like manufacturer parts on your car.
BTW, no extra time and effort.

If you don't have other software that is less time and effort, then so be it. So PSP is Paint Shop Pro, right?

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

therwol wrote:

If you're scanning slides and negatives, you can't scan RAW. TIFF is the only lossless format available to you. You can work with the TIFF files without any loss of quality in multiple edits and then convert to jpeg.

Exactly

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Robertl594 wrote:

Exactly

You can work in LR for unlimited edits with never even a potential loss of quality, and then export to JPEG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

You can work in LR for unlimited edits with never even a potential loss of quality, and then export to JPEG.

Is that because LR intrinsically saves the original or one must keep the original explicitly.
Does LR keep the original and save the edit history?

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

"TIFF is the only lossless format available to you. You can work with the TIFF files without any loss of quality in multiple edits and then convert to jpeg."

The nail on the head... there was an earlier discussion of this matter on this site... a year or two back.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Longshadow wrote:

Is that because LR intrinsically saves the original or one must keep the original explicitly.
Does LR keep the original and save the edit history?

The latter. LR "imports" a copy of the original, leaving the original safe and unchanged. LR edits are stored inside a relational database as a step-by-step history (log) against the imported copy. On-demand, those LR edits can be exported creating a new and separate output file with any number of output options / combinations covering pixel resolution, file size, colorspace, file format, w/ or w/o watermark, etc.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Dikdik wrote:

"TIFF is the only lossless format available to you. You can work with the TIFF files without any loss of quality in multiple edits and then convert to jpeg."

The nail on the head... there was an earlier discussion of this matter on this site... a year or two back.

The topic is RAW vs TIFF, not TIFF vs JPEG.

So actually, that's a swing and a miss, hitting your thumb rather than the nail ....

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

The latter. LR "imports" a copy of the original, leaving the original safe and unchanged. LR edits are stored inside a relational database as a step-by-step history (log) against the imported copy. On-demand, those LR edits can be exported creating a new and separate output file with any number of output options / combinations covering pixel resolution, file size, colorspace, file format, w/ or w/o watermark, etc.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

You know, if it's a good picture no one cares if taken and processed in RAW, JPG, TIFF or a studio. Now what is a good picture? A picture you want to look at or buy or one that was to count the dots and check the edges?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A good photograph is not explained with words, it just needs at least thirty megapixels.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Architect1776 wrote:

Why do people waste time converting to TIFF.
The raw has all the data and from what I see most all, if not all, web sites only use JPEGs.
Also most printers seem to require JPEGs. Perhaps some special printers use TIFFs.
But overall they seem like a waste of life when one has the raw file.

It is true that RAW files contain the most information but for printing and sharing tiff or jpeg are better. Indeed I have had publishers request tiff files. Raw editing is best done in a Raw editor but sometimes further work can be done in paintshop pro or photoshop. A 16 bit tiff is almost as good as a raw file for additional editing. jpgs are small and can represtent the final project.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Picture Taker wrote:

You know, if it's a good picture no one cares if taken and processed in RAW, JPG, TIFF or a studio. Now what is a good picture? A picture you want to look at or buy or one that was to count the dots and check the edges?

My philosophy also.
I don't care how they got there, just the end result.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

TIFF vs -

https://www.lightstalking.com/raw-or-jpeg-what-should-i-use/
https://northrup.photo/gear-basics/faq/raw-or-jpg/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QczEFjn9P7I
https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg
http://www.diyphotography.net/raw-vs-jpeg-guide-will-ever-need/
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2009/08/10/dng-raw-and-jpeg-what-i-use-why/
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=44

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

PHOTOGRAPHY IS THE PICTURE. Like it and hang it or not. Should I put a price tag on my picture or a score card, I put a price and that means some one has the pay not score the picture.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you don't have other software that is less time and effort, then so be it. So PSP is Paint Shop Pro, right?

Yup