RAW vs. TIFF

DO you shoot in RAW or TIFF and why? Pros and Cons?

On my camera (D100) the TIFF is only 8 bit, but the files are twice the size of RAW files, which have more bits (12, 14, whatever it is),

which means they take twice as long to write to the CF card.

 

So TIFF is pretty useless on the D100. Of course RAW files require post-processing, which is a little bit awkward (and terribly slow on

my dual 500 G4). You probably wouldn't want to archive only RAW files since they are a proprietary format.

 

So I guess using TIFF would appeal to people who valued minimizing their post processing time over the ability to shoot faster, get more images on a card and have all the bits available.

 

Also many publishing and graphic design shops are used to dealing with TIFF files so it makes their workflow a little more straightforward to get those files right out of the camera.

Hi,

Raw is defintely the way to go. If even though you don't have that much processing power, I prefer raw because when the images are extracted from that format, it somehow looks cleaner and more refined than the tiff format. But definitely, the tiff format are way easier to handle.

I shoot RAw /NEF. I do so because I get greater bit depth per channel, which

translates to grater subtlety of color and also added headed room when editing or

manipulating the image (every editing step in a digital darkroom program costs you

some degree of information.

there are are lots of reasons to do so. Perhaps you should do some reading. I suggest

"Real World Adobe Photoshop CS" or Adobe photoshop CS for Photographers".

 

Your question is too big to be answered in a meaningful way in an internet forum.

I've got a Drebel, so RAW is my only option. But that said: I don't see the point in TIFF compared to RAW. The single best reason for RAW is white balance, processing an image with the correct white balance (by which I mean the one that you want, not the one that is technicaly correct!) is much easier. The second one is filesize, TIFFs are much bigger, why waste that space and write time when you get nothing extra for it?

 

What I have discovered by using Capture One is that the idea most people have that RAW processing is more time consuming than JPEG/TIFF is nonsense. You need the right software (C1), but because you don't waste time correcting a wrongly set white balance using levels/curves, you work much faster!

"<i>You probably wouldn't want to archive only RAW files since they are a proprietary format. </i>"<p>

 

The <i>only</i> way I want to archive is in RAW format. They are MUCH smaller than even 8-bit TIFF's and I get to keep the option of changing exposure and white balance long after the fact. <p>

 

Not archiving RAW files is like burning your negatives after you make prints out of them, and I don't think you'd want to do that.

I agree, by the time your RAW file format becomes obsolete (unconvertable on new computer hardware and you are getting rid of the old) you can always batch convert to a new format at that time. Untill that time, keep the original.

 

C1 DSLR also saves the conversion settings you used for a raw file, which is easily backed up. This way you get to pretty much archive both the RAW version and the conversion you made out of that, for the price of just the size of the RAW!

If you expose perfectly then raw is probably not necessary. Then again, neither is tiff

(just use fine jpg). If you are less than perfect the greatest flexibility for correction is

raw.

Patrick.....With all do respect: Perfect exposure??? Did I read that correctly?

Choice of exposure is a critical first step, to be sure, but it is after all a choice;

there are many exposures that can be implimented to a given scene if Paul's

intent is to make a print. All exposure is relative. Relative to the scene, relative

to the scene's light scale, relative to the photographer's sense of imagery and

most importantly relative to the anticipated look of the print. If Ansel Adams'

prints looked exactly like what he saw with his eye or his straight negatives for

that matter, we would never have heard his name. By reputation, his

exposure craft was impecable, but it was also extremely subjective in light of

his print pre-visualization skills. Working with contrast, density and color

balance in Photoshop is what imbues the print with the photographer's

intended feeling. It is not a sign of "less than perfect" as you put it. You're

implying that "perfect" exposure is where photography ends. Just because

this is digital, let's not lose sight of the basic principles of print making. Paul,

my vote is for RAW for these reasons.

<p>"You probably wouldn't want to archive <b>only</b> RAW files since they are a proprietary format. </p>

 

<p><b>Alan</b> and <b>Bas</b>, you misread me. I was recommending archiving an open format <b>along with</b> RAW/NEF, so that the files will always be readable.</p>

RAW for anything that I'd like to print or otherwise display, jpeg for web or email. Even on prosumers like the Olympus C-5050, RAW files let you recover a lot of details in the highlights and shadows that a jpeg loses.