RAW vs. TIFF

<p>I just received my D800 and see I can shoot in TIFF format now instead of just RAW or JPEG. I'm really enjoying shooting in TIFF. I like to open my files directly into PS and work that way. With RAW I have to open them in a Nikon software I am totally unfamiliar with, then usually just end up wanting to open them in PS to work on them but can't. </p>

<p>What is the real advantage of RAW files? Especially vs. TIFF. I find that on my card the TIFF files actually take up more space then RAW. This doesn't make sense to me. </p>

<p>Someone help educate me please!</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Long story, but to cut to the quick, you can open your RAW (NEF) files in PS...you may need to download Adobe DNG converter, but it's a piece of cake. However, if you do use Nikon software to open your RAW (NEF) files, you will have slightly better control over certain features Nikon designed in their firmware, you can then save to TIFF if you want and open in PS. The advantage of RAW (NEF) files simply is that they contain all the data one can extract from the file, whereas TIFF has already made some modifications. there's a lot more, but this is just a hint...there should be more in the learning tab.</p>

<p>The RAW files take up less space because only one color is stored per pixel. Then the RAW converter does it's Bayer demosaicing thing to create a color image. Essentially the color of a pixel needs to be determined by looking at the neighboring pixels. With TIFF or JPG files that is done in the camera and the result is stored on the card. At that point each pixel contains three color values.</p>

<p>The real advantage of RAW is you have much more control over how the demosaicing process. This lets you set the whitepoint and other settings after the fact. Essentially you now have control over much more of the process, and the results can be huge. You can recover slightly blown out highlights, and correct exposure errors with ease in RAW, whereas using TIFF or JPG the data gone. You also can stop worrying about setting adjustments for color and contrast in the field, which to me is a huge benefit. Shooting video with the camera shows me how much I never want to shoot TIFF or JPG again, since you need to make many setting changes to get the image just right, depending on the light.</p>

<p>I recommend you shoot in RAW and use Camera Raw as part of the import into Photoshop process. No need to use Nikon's software. The Camera RAW converter is very straightforward to use.</p>

<p>RAW images are as close to negatives as you can get with digital. When you open and adjust RAW images (or print from negatives), including exposure and color balance, the original is not changed. If you save the results, you save TIFF or JPEG files as the derivative of these changes. Each time you edit a TIFF file, you discard some information. Since TIFF files must be converted from RAW files, even if done in camera, and they are larger, the process is by necessity slower.</p>

<p>RAW files are smaller than TIFF because some of the information used to convert them to another format is contained in firmware, including color information according the the location of each pixel relative to the Bayer filter.</p>

<p>Wow, this is scientific stuff! L.G where can I get Camera RAW? And do I have to use a new version on PS? I'm still running CS because it has everything I need to edit photos.<br>

Also, would there be any advantage to shooting TIFF compared to RAW? What about the possibility of being able to open the files in the future?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>One big difference is that TIFF images are 8-bit per channel (24-bit) color. In RAW NEF you get the full 14-bit color the D800 is capable of (see page 84 of the English version of the D800 manual).</p>

<p>Does anyone know why Nikon chose to limit TIFF pictures? I believe the format is capable of storing full 16-bit per channel color values.</p>

<p>To answer the second question, you can use the latest free DNG converter from Adobe to convert you NEF files to DNG files; then process the DNG files in CS.</p>

<p>[Deleted duplicate]</p>

<p>Thanks Brooks. Is there any difference in converting NEF files to DNG and editing this way rather than using the newest PS to convert?</p>

<p>The newest PS will give you considerably more functions editing the NEF files. Adobe Camera Raw is fast becoming a full fledged editing program in its own right.</p>

<p>TIFF or JPEG = a cooked chocolate cake. if you find the cake to taste too much or not enough chocolate, your only option is to add some creamy vanilla or chocolate topping. you cant make the cake itself taste something else. Same with those 2 format; you cant change what they are, and if you find the color balance to be too cold or too warm you can only add or subtract info by in both case adding a filter over it.. not the same as changing the real info. If you have a blwon out sky, good chance that the sky is gone for real with no data.</p>

<p>RAW = a mix of ingredient in a bowl.. a chocolate cake in making. if it taste too much or not enough, simply add some cocoa powder, add more sugar, basically change the recipe before you cooked it. no creamy topping needed. Same with the raw format; you have all the flexibility of correcting the image like color balance, temperature, and even get back details you think you have lost.</p>

<p>I don't see the point of shooting TIFF vs a JPEG, as it is the same cooked version of your image without the compression..</p>

<p>Better shoot jpeg vs tif since it take less space on your card and hard drive and its also faster to record your image on your card, and better shoot raw vs jpeg or tif to get the full potential of your expensive camera... you have a good camera, start using it correctly, and learn your way with Lightroom / Aperture or whatever you might find interesting (Lightroom is for many, me included one of the best software for that purpose)</p>

<p>You can download the DNG converter as someone has mentioned. However I would recommend looking at Lightroom. It's gotten significantly cheaper than it started out at, and more useful with the later versions. Then you could use that to open your files in your older version of Photoshop. Lightroom 4 is down to $133 at Amazon. There's also a 30 day trial from Adobe so you could test the process out for no charge.</p>

<p>Also, it's not true that TIFF files lose info as you re-save them. That's only the case if you use JPG compression in the TIFF. I wouldn't do that, unless space is tight. But since you have the RAW image as a starting point it's a viable option.</p>

<p>As to shooting TIFF instead of RAW, the only advantage is you can open it directly in an image editor without making any decisions. But from the way you described your workflow I see no advantages. For a product shot where you setup the lighting, and tweak the camera settings the TIFF could speed up the workflow in that you could transfer it directly to an art director. I've never shot this way, so I don't know for sure it would work out in practice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>TIFF or JPEG = a cooked chocolate cake. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup. Plus not working with a raw means that you’ve given up one major aspect of photography; rendering the image as you so desire. <br>

So here again is the Adobe article that explains what you’re giving up:</p>

<p>http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf</p>

<p>Patricks answer +1. And now I'm hungry.</p>

<p><em>If you have a blwon out sky, good chance that the sky is gone for real with no data.</em><br />That reads like an excuse not to take the photo properly in the first place.<br /><em>you have a good camera, start using it correctly</em><br />This is the argument of the technician not the photographer. It is the image that is important not how you get it.<br>

<em>one major aspect of photography; rendering the image as you so desire</em>.<br>

What a load of nonsense, I never shoot raw and still get the results I want if I take the photos properly in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you have a blwon out sky, good chance that the sky is gone for real with no data.</em><br />That reads like an excuse not to take the photo properly in the first place.<br /><em>you have a good camera, start using it correctly</em><br />This is the argument of the technician not the photographer. It is the image that is important not how you get it.<br /> <em>one major aspect of photography; rendering the image as you so desire</em>.<br /> What a load of nonsense, I never shoot raw and still get the results I want if I take the photos properly in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JC, I do a lot of JPEG-only shooting, but I wouldn't make any of those assertions or advise a beginner to do the same... at least not without cautioning them that data losses are irretrievable.</p>

<p>It isn't a matter of taking the photo properly in the first place, or being a technician vs. a photographer. As with color slide film, it's simply a fact that some situations exceed the range of the capabilities of JPEGs. In some situations there is no single correct exposure that will capture the full range from shadow to sky and allow room for tweaking without risking ugly posterizing and artifacts. Even tricks such as in-camera dynamic range compensation for JPEGs come at some cost.</p>

<p>In terms of a sky being blown out, much as to do with whether the data is raw or JPEG. You can’t treat the two the same either. What appears to be a blown out sky in a JPEG could provide a boat load of data in the raw (assuming you exposed for JPEG and also captured a raw). People are amazed at what they think is raw’s ability to recover highlight data. The data was always there. If you blow out the raw data (sensor overload), it’s gone. But you could over expose for a JPEG which is really what you’d need for ideal raw exposure (see: http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html). <br>

If you capture raw, the LCD and JPEG (you capture with the raw or the embedded JPEG in the raw) are simply one rendering, interpreted by the camera. It doesn’t provide any useful data about the raw itself. An idealized exposure for raw will very likely produce a JPEG (or preview on the LCD) that looks blown out. The data is vastly, vastly different. The rendering is vastly different (one YOU control, one your camera controls). </p>

<p>As Photographers we still have to understand exposure 101. But you would not treat transparency film, and it’s stated ISO and development as you would treat a color or B&W neg! You test each set of processes, then you can correctly expose for each. That’s the same with JPEG and raw. </p>

<p>Thanks guys. These are some good responses. I am certainly no beginner in photography. I shot chromes for years so know all about metering for the highlights for chromes, and digital is no different. I spent the last 6 years shooting and developing and printing my own black and white work which I am continuing to do. However I took a hiatus from color work until a Nikon DSLR got to the point where it was atleast as good as 35mm. With the D800 it's there and a little beyond which is why I picked one up. Shooting chromes and sending film out and paying for drum scans gets very very old after a while, hence the reason to move to black and white work. But I'm used to old school Adobe CS and simple editing I used to do in say 2004. I'm enjoying shooting TIFFs in the D800 because I can just bring it into PS and work on it, like I've always done. </p>

<p>BTW... I downloaded DNG converter and it doesn't work with CS. I understand a RAW file holding more information. I'm just a creature of habit and I hate having to spend money on software just to open a non-native file so that I can re-save it and open in PS to work on. I don't know. I'm still not sure.</p>

<p>Brian ... you have struck one of my reasons for not using raw ... with your experience and the camera I am sure you will be very happy with tiff ... you are most certainly not a beginner being misled [ IMO ] by the raw camp as I originally thought :-) <br>

I think raw has probably improved [ we now have 36Mp cameras and I have a 16Mp :-) ] like everything else in digital photography but when I tried it a few years back it did nothing for me that I couldn't get from my jpg files and seemed an involved can of worms.</p>

<p>LEX ... what you loose from shooting jpg as opposed to tiff or raw is not noticable in the normal run of events, exposing correctly or deliberately erring on the safe [under] side in normal situations and I gave good advice for a newbie to not get tangled up with raw. There is a recent thread where a newbie is trying to work in manual before they have got to walking, another example of mis-info picked up by a newbie.</p>

<p>Newbies are continually searching for silver bullets and raw is definitely not one of these. Really the silver bullet is to trust their camera until they know when and how to over-ride it.</p>

<p>ANDREW ... I repeat if you expose correctly you don't have to rescue or reveal information from burnt out skies ... seems almost you are advocating for the careless?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ANDREW ... I repeat if you expose correctly you don't have to rescue or reveal information from burnt out skies ... seems almost you are advocating for the careless?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggest you read the article I referenced. You’ll see that exposing for raw is one thing, exposing for JPEG is different. IF you expose for raw, the initial rendering you see (based on a JPEG) will appear over exposed, IT IS NOT. </p>

<p>Over exposure is simply that! If you expose raw and blow out highlight data you wish to retain, you over exposed. If you expose for a JPEG, you are effectively under exposing for the raw data. You can’t treat the two the same way (one is a linear encoded data, the other is gamma encoded). </p>

<p>If you're going to work in tiff format edit in ACR set to 16bit/ProphotoRGB anyway.</p>

<p>I'm currently going back to edit some old jpegs I shot before I switched to Raw exclusively. I'm amazed at how much easier and faster it is to edit them in ACR over Photoshop. Don't know what features are available in CS version of ACR but the curves tool both Parametric and Point are very powerful time savers along with HSL, Split Tone and Fill sliders.</p>

<p>ACR's interface has all the tools in one panel cluster layout so there's no opening,editing and saving out of a bunch of nested menu dialog boxes as in Photoshop. </p><div></div>

<p>JC, nothing should be a excuse to take a great picture first in camera. As a matter of fact, a lot of my image where taken in jpeg for multiple reason; the camera just shoot in jpeg, i need a faster burst rate, i didtn have enough memory card etc... im not saying you cant get great picture with a jpeg, im saying that you have more info with a raw to start with (as Andrew explain it) and i dont see the point of shoothing a tif vs a jpeg since it take longer to write on the card, you fit less images per card and others reason.</p>

<p>Im suggesting that if you dont want to shoot in raw (because your photoshop is too old, because you dont know how etc) then shoot in jpeg.. because in any case, even if you open the TIF in Ps, you still need to save the file anyway correct?.. so at that time you just save it as a TIF then. space wise, speed wise .. its wiser ; ) IF you have correctly expose your image, a TIF or a JPEG wont change that.</p>

<p>As Tim demomnstrate, the OP should get is hand on a raw developer like ACR or better Lr.. because if he is shoothing that good, all he need is a simple darkroom program to get the best out of is image, and ACR and Lightroom is that kind of tool vs Ps. </p>

<p>you want a simple workflow? you then want a simple program that does complex things easy.. Lightroom is exactly that + the management of your image and the amazing print capability..</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I downloaded DNG converter and it doesn't work with CS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How so? It should allow you to use Photoshop CS with those DNGs. </p>

<p>Well Nikon's free ViewNX should allow you to convert the RAW files IF you don't want to spend any money on software right now.</p>

<p>But shortchanging yourself on current software is a poor choice with that camera. And it doesn't make sense not to use software that has been adapted to work with it.</p>

<p>I gave Photoshop away as a cumbersome and awkward programme and since what I use is equally sophisticated, capable and current I have no great desire to spend on anything else that I cannot see any need for. I don't see that the posted illustrations prove anything one cannot do with what I have. I know that those that have jumped on the raw bandwagon need to justify it somehow ... though I don't really see it has much to do with photography as opposed to the technical side of taking photos. But each to their own I guess as a pastime.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I know that those that have jumped on the raw bandwagon need to justify it somehow ... though I don't really see it has much to do with photography </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you read the Rendering the Print article? It has a huge amount to do with photography. </p>