CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

RAW, TIFF & JPEG OK. But what are the Adobe file formats used for PNG PSD etc.
Craig

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

With that flow, there is no reason to make the first save out of raw a JPEG file. Since the raw is staying "original", I save as JPEG only for viewing/emailing/posting purposes, and then, if I decide a want a (large) print, I re-open the original raw, with my edits applied via sidecar, and then export an appropriately sized TIFF file which I then send to the printer.

Result : space-saving JPEGs, TIFF only when I need them, and raws always there for return edits.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Fred, I take it a step further. I save no jpgs at all. I use LR, so generating a jpg is a quick and simple matter, based on a number of presets I have created - full-sized HQ jpgs, email jpgs, jpgs for posting on social media, jpgs for posting on UHH, tiif or jpg for print, and all of these and more I can do with or without a watermark - on demand.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

:thumbup:

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cameras can be set to shoot in Raw or in JPEG, but cameras can not be set to shoot in TIFF.

As an example: Had images been exposed upon a camera's sensor with a RAW setting, images upon the sensor can be converted into TIFF, Png or JPEG, but had your camera been set to record images in the JPEG setting, JPEG cannot be post processed with most of the post processing features which are offered with most processing software programs.

If you don't care to deal with presets and embellishing features that are offered with most all post processing software programs, your best option is to shoot in JPEG which allows your camera to utilize the processing functions that have already been built into or programmed into your camera. These would include contrast, sharpening, color, white balance, etc, which you must adjust yourself if you had shot in a RAW setting. Yet, had you shot in RAW, you always have full control over all of the embellishing options that your camera would had, otherwise adjusted for you had you shot in the JPEG setting, however; when you make the adjustments yourself in the RAW setting, you can make far more intense adjustments in post processing than your camera would had made for you had you shot with a JPEG setting.

Most experienced photographers would rather have full control over the way their images look and to accomplish this, they always shoot with the RAW setting. Yet, whenever a photographer decides that his or her camera's ability to produce images is good enough, they will go ahead and shoot with the JPEG setting which, then, is quite a bit easier to immediately begin sharing their images with others via emailing them, or sending them directly to professional processing labs who convert the images into printed enlarged photographs.

Being that you had to ask the question that you had asked, it might be in your best interest to shoot in JPEG at this time until such time you better understand the differences between JPEG, RAW, Png, and TIFF.

Meanwhile, whenever you have time to experiment with taking shots in RAW and you have a post processing software program availed to you, go ahead and play around with some of it's features and see what you can do with them, but I wouldn't suggest that you perform your experimentation with images you've taken that are important for you to keep.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Cannot help with any authority as I use Serif PhotoPlus and/or Silkypix. I am not sure that PNG is an Adobe format exclusively, but I think it was designed for printing. If I have it wrong someone will advise better. :-)

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Perhaps the original poster talking about tiffs retain all the editing where a jpg does not is really saying what everyone should know - a TIFF is a lossless format, where a JPG is a LOSSY format - so a TIFF retains all the details/data where a JPG loses something in the translation. - Yep it does - agree 100%

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Cameras do not "shoot" TIFF or JPEG. All cameras read image data from the focal plane, add metadata (data about data) such as camera model, aperture, lens speed, lens model, ISO, time and date, etc., and either send the image data with the metadata to the buffer as a raw file, or processes the data to produce a JPEG or TIFF file before sending it to the buffer. The processing is very fast. The buffer write speed to the memory card is not as fast and can be a bottleneck for large files such as TIFF or raw files.

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree, but the things that you mention are performed within the camera and to bring it up, more than likely, will only confuse the original poster further.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

:thumbup:

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Hi Doug
For those who would like to be able to do all the things with JPG that can be done with RAW (if their present editing progs won't) inc. adjust W/B, and use Layers etc - I would recommend a look at Serif PhotoPlus (latest edition - X7). Trials available. :-)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Hi Gene
If you have spent time editing a file for printing or sharing, and produced a great result, do you not save the layers file, or indeed a collapsed file, in case you wish to produce further copies? or is everything you might change decided by your presets? :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Doug, there are a number of cameras that can be set to shoot TIFF. All of Nikon's current and previous pro cameras, and the Df, can shoot tiff. So can Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad H4D-40, and I am sure a few others.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You just proved the point Gene. While there are execptions, none of them are printers the OP is likely to see or use without going to a lot of effort to be different.

Just going to the nearest commercial printer, where they use an Epson 9900, won't get a 16-bit printer.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The 9900 processes and prints 16 bit with the native driver, unless they have changed that since it was released:

See page 12

http://www.imagingspectrum.com/images/Epson_7900_9900_brief.pdf

And it can do it with a hardware or software RIP in any case. It is a wide gamut printer and leverages it's increased bit depth (in internal processing and output) to produce better images.

Hell, I have that with my Epson 4880 and my HP Z3200 as well.

As far as "...none of them are printers the OP is likely to see or use..." as I pointed out, whenever you send out an image to a commercial printer for C prints on Fuji or Kodak, they are being printed on 36 bit Oce or Durst printers. I would say that the overwhelming majority of prints made today are C prints - because they are economical and the quality is excellent. You will often see "chromogenic" prints hanging in galleries and museums.


BTW, this article takes information from the Epson press release (which I can't put my finger on right now, and clearly indicates the selling point of the 16 bit drivers and the improved quality they provide:

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/epson_stylus_pro_9900_and_stylus_pro_7900/

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.