Easyrider wrote:
So shoot in raw and save it in tiff over jpeg if it's an important file
Did I get it right?Rich
Well, kind of almost. Importance has nothing do to with it, per se. A JPEG saves just as well as a TIFF. Apart from some MINOR color and quality differences, they will both LOOK the same, on a given monitor or a given sheet of paper, all other things being equal.
The difference is in how the bits and bytes of the digital image are stored in the file. A JPEG image is compressed (by comparing and tossing away color bits that don't 'add' to the picture) whenever you make any edits to the image. It may be compressed a little bit, or a lot. If you open, edit, save, open, edit, save a JPEG about 10 times, the final compressed image may be waaaaay too compressed and slimmed down. In effect, you loose a little bit of image quality each time. It may start out at 5mb in size, but be 80K by the time you're done. IF, BIG IF, YOU EDIT each time you open it. If you just open to VIEW, it does NOT get re-compressed.
This does NOT happen in a TIFF image. If it gets created from a raw file and is 80mb in size, it will always STAY 80mb in size, minus any physical cropping you to do the image file.
So if your work flow is "Snapshot - process raw - save as JPEG' and you never edit the finished product again, or at least you only do it once or twice, JPEG is perfectly fine.
If you "snapshot - process raw - convert to TIFF - send to Photoshop - edit edit edit edit, save, next day open in PS - edit edit edit edit..save...next day open in PS - edit edit edit... etc, then TIFF is your better bet, since the original TIFF image won't lose quality as you mess with it.
And as mentioned TIFF files tend to be HUGE. If disk space is a factor, JPEGs are about 1/20th the size.