TIFF vs raw
Jun 3, 2022 09:15:44 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
Longshadow wrote:
One can.
I scan to JPEG.
If I do multiple edits I always start with the original for subsequent edits. I never do multiple edits on a file.
Somebody should make a scanner that creates RAW files.
I scan to JPEG.
If I do multiple edits I always start with the original for subsequent edits. I never do multiple edits on a file.
Somebody should make a scanner that creates RAW files.
I too scan in JPEG, work on copies, no loss to anything. Keeps it simple.
Jun 3, 2022 09:16:59 #
larryepage wrote:
Yep, just one. Probably cpuld have solved it with a DNG instead, but the printer asked to try a TIFF.
Do you two guys not have something constructive to go and do?
Do you two guys not have something constructive to go and do?
Printer likely couldn’t use a DNG.
Jun 3, 2022 09:19:19 #
gvarner wrote:
I too scan in JPEG, work on copies, no loss to anything. Keeps it simple.
Jun 3, 2022 09:19:50 #
Alafoto
Loc: Montgomery, AL
Architect1776 wrote:
I guess I am saying what good is a TIFF?
You can look at it on your computer but that seems to be about it.
You can look at it on your computer but that seems to be about it.
It is a lossless compression method. Certainly TIFF files take a lot of space but if one saves their raw files, there's always a fallback position.
Jun 3, 2022 09:21:07 #
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.
If you CAMERA SCAN slides and negatives, you can work with raw data. If you're using a film scanner, you're probably stuck with TIFF or JPEG. Hopefully you use a scanner that has 16 bits per color channel.
See the PDF I attached.
Jun 3, 2022 09:27:15 #
ELNikkor wrote:
Don't know what TIFF is, or why some of my files were saved as TIFF in Gigapixel, but the files were huge; probably good for printing murals.
Tagged Image File Format. There are over 45 flavors of it. It's a bitmap format with a "header" table of metadata that tells your operating system and applications what sort of scheme was used to record the image data in the bitmap. The metadata is the 'tag'.
TIFF files may or may not be losslessly compressed with ZIP or LZW. Most TIFF files also include a JPEG preview image used by operating systems to display a thumbnail of the file in Mac Finder or Windows Explorer. Applications may display the thumbnail as well.
I use TIFF as an intermediate format for editing, although .PSD is better for layers. I store raw files and finished JPEGs and a few TIFFs I don't want to have to create again if I make changes.
Jun 3, 2022 09:27:21 #
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?
Jun 3, 2022 09:31:29 #
Longshadow wrote:
My philosophy also.
I don't care how they got there, just the end result.
My philosophy also.
I don't care how they got there, just the end result.
Yes, but someone has to "Get them there", and that person cares, if they're serious about their work.
Wow! See how I worked "there", "their", and "they're" into my post? Wasn't even trying...
Jun 3, 2022 09:34:11 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
On one level, you're 100% right. br br Now in 20... (show quote)
Pretty spot on, Paul.
The one exception is a high end boutique "giclee" (pigmented inkjet) lab. They can work from a 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB to give you a print with more saturation, color accuracy, and dynamic range than you would see from a traditional wet process photo lab. Such labs do work for art museums and the highest end portrait photographers, rock star and celebrity photographers, advertisers who have to reproduce a "trade marked" color (Corvette Red, for instance). If you need a lab like that, you're in a pretty rarefied circle of artists and photographers...
Jun 3, 2022 09:35:56 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
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.
When scanning a film image that I know I’ll be doing work on in different PP applications, I scan to a .TIFF and save as a .TIFF in each application in which I make changes to the image. My understanding is that the image quality will not be degraded through compression of the data (as in a .jpg) by successive saves. When I’m done with the PP and want to have a .jpg for printing or sharing, I save the .TIFF as a .jpg.
Stan
Jun 3, 2022 09:39:26 #
burkphoto wrote:
Pretty spot on, Paul. br br The one exception is ... (show quote)
And hopefully, you know what you're doing (along with everyone at the lab) and why, and not down in the mud with up bugs on UHH ...
Jun 3, 2022 09:45:36 #
burkphoto wrote:
... Hopefully you use a scanner that has 16 bits per color channel.
...
...
My one scanner is old (Canon LiDE-210). I have no idea how many bits per color channel it uses.
It scans... nicely. That's all I care about
WOW - I just checked. The 210 was installed on my system in March of 2013! Nine years old!
My how time flies when you're having fun.
Jun 3, 2022 09:49:17 #
twosummers wrote:
I do work for an Australian construction magazine. They specify that my photographs are delivered to them as TIFF files.
Their production staff must be fossils... In reality, much of the working knowledge in the offset press industry is out of date habits. The graphic arts industry learns something once, and never pays attention to why it might be obsolete knowledge in a decade or two.
I worked for three companies that owned photo labs and yearbook printers. The labs were in love with JPEGs and the printers were in love with TIFFS — until we at the lab proved to our friends that they could save 80% or more on server space and 65% on processing time and network bandwidth by saving *adjusted* scanner files as JPEGs instead of as 16-bit TIFFs. Their quality actually improved, because they started using CMYK proofing profiles to make final tweaks before saving things as JPEGs. They learned that from us, too.
Jun 3, 2022 09:55:06 #
Longshadow wrote:
My one scanner is old (Canon LiDE-210). I have no ... (show quote)
Some scanners last a long time. We bought an early iMac DV around 2000. It came in a bundle with a cheap Agfa flatbed scanner. We used that in the office for as long as we could find a driver for it. When I couldn't, I took it to an electronics recycler. If I'd known about VueScan at the time, we would probably still use it. It was adequate for single page documents.
Jun 3, 2022 09:59:13 #
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.
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.
I often use TIFF files as an intermediate between two editing programs. Some editing software will not accept RAW files as input, but even if they do there is no real standard for how to interpret a RAW file; TIFF files are unambiguous. Two areas of interpretation can cause trouble with RAW files. One is whether and how to correct for lens distortions and the other is the mosaic algorithm for interpolating between the relatively sparse color detail in a RAW file.
The big disadvantage to TIFF files is that they are big, but still there is a legitimate need for them.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.