TIFF?

You ever use the TIFF setting (D300)? Any advantages?

Unlike JPEG, TIFF is uncompressed. I don't understand why Nikon only offers it as an 8 bit option though? I never use it, If I need a TIFF file I shoot RAW and convert to 16 bit TIFF.

I am not aware of any SHOOTING TIFF advantage and guess thats the reason why Pentax dropped the TIFF option after their 1st DSLR.

I confess: I once shot TIFF on purpose and for no "good" reason. An authority wanted something signed every other year. Annoyed by that I wanted to bless them with their form emailed in the unwieldiest file format at hand.

TIFF post conversion workflows might still make sense, when you need every single pixel and are also likely to open, alter and re-write your file multiple times, before you finish working on it. But your software probably offers more compact alternatives.

I am really no fan of "shooting discipline via file or card size". I still own a Nikon branded CF card with a whopping 8MB, holding a single RAW file of the Coolpix 990 but taking that camera out I 'd insert something bigger. Buffer sizes and writing speeds of my older cameras are more than sufficiently restrictive, for my taste.

A few years ago, several of us friends went to a wedding. I had my D800E with me and took pictures of a couple (not the bride and groom). They loved that picture when they saw a JPEG in e-mail. They wanted to make a huge print to put in their house. I told them that the JPEG was way too small for a quality print. Eventually I converted my NEF file to a large TIFF file around 500M. I used file transfer to send them the TIFF, and they took it to a printer to make the print.

I probably could have sent them the Adobe PSD file, but I figured that TIFF is more universally acceptable than NEF or PSD.

I probably could have sent them the Adobe PSD file, but I figured that TIFF is more universally acceptable than NEF or PSD.

Unless they plan to edit the image extensively, sending them a 300 dpi in JPG with the correct measurement would be fine - that's the kind that printers accept.

Unless they plan to edit the image extensively, sending them a 300 dpi in JPG with the correct measurement would be fine - that's the kind that printers accept.

I wasn't sure whether their printer would further process that image so that TIFF offers more flexibility. Those friends live in a different city. 500M is too big as an e-mail attachment. If file transfer didn't work I might need to mail them a jump drive or SD card.

And then another time my wife took a TIFF image to get printed at the local Walgreens, but they wouldn't accept TIFF files and I had to get them a JPEG. The 16x20 print looked quite good. I used the D5 in that occasion so that we are talking about only 20MP.

A few years ago, several of us friends went to a wedding. I had my D800E with me and took pictures of a couple (not the bride and groom). They loved that picture when they saw a JPEG in e-mail. They wanted to make a huge print to put in their house. I told them that the JPEG was way too small for a quality print. Eventually I converted my NEF file to a large TIFF file around 500M. I used file transfer to send them the TIFF, and they took it to a printer to make the print.

 

I probably could have sent them the Adobe PSD file, but I figured that TIFF is more universally acceptable than NEF or PSD.

There is, as you know, the option to record JPEG in full resolution and still have relatively small files.

TIFF is a container, in which you can store just about anything, from BMP to JPEG to layered PS file.

And then another time my wife took a TIFF image to get printed at the local Walgreens, but they wouldn't accept TIFF files and I had to get them a JPEG.

Yes JPG is what print shops - especially online printing - normally accept. Sometimes they would ask whether it needs enhancement, I would check "No".

I use TIFF files as deliverables, when the client needs to edit and enlarge the images (e.g., posters). Edited TIFF files for use must be resaved, which is a destructive process, especially color balance. RAW file editing is non-destructive, but can be rendered and saved as often as needed. Lightroom overcomes destructive editing, but TIFF files are 3x as large as RAW - why bother.

There is no reason resaving a TIFF file should be destructive. TIFF usually uses a lossless compression scheme like LZW or a variation of ZIP.

On the other hand, the editing process may be a bit level edit such as a Photoshop edit, which does change the file as the edit is made. But if you use layers (TIFF is capable of saving layers) even that would be nondestructive. Lightroom, of course, uses parametric editing (in effect it saves the edit commands rather than making changes to the file and then applies these commands when the image is rendered).

In side by side comparisons with jpegs, the Tiffs seem to have a little more pop...or is it my imagination.

Never paid much attention to this because I use PSD. Hwvr, this is possible because JPG is lossy - it deteriorates over time of repeated resaves, whereas TIFF is lossless.

No matter how you edit a RAW file, the original file is not changed. You can only save changes by making a copy in some other format, like TIFF or JPEG. On the other hand, TIFF files can be resaved after making changes, permanently (destructively) altering the original.You can save changes to any file in Lightroom to a sidecar XML file without altering the original, but the changes can be observed in Lightroom.

We're getting into the woods a bit, but for audio and video "non-destructive" editing takes two forms, non-linear (by parameter), and copy and resave. The latter is only now used in elementary software, and is much less efficient in time and space, and can inadvertently wreck your masters.

Compressed TIFF files should be avoided. You can't save much space with so-called "non-destructive" compression, and compatibility with other software can be problematic.

TIFF files can be resaved after making changes, permanently (destructively) altering the original.

Tiff is not destructive if you save the original as a layer and make changes on the other layers.

Each layer increases the size.

There's nothing wrong with TIFF files, or TIFF files with layers. You can put a lot of work fixing up an image for sale or publication. With layers, you don't have to start from scratch if you have a new "vision" of what you wish to present. TIFF files make high-class transmissibles for distribution, although JPEG files work well enough if used without further modification.

I'm just saying there's no compelling reason to use them all the time, when RAW files contain all necessary information in a smaller, more flexible package.

Lightroom, of course, uses parametric editing (in effect it saves the edit commands rather than making changes to the file and then applies these commands when the image is rendered).

But that makes the file edit entirely non-portable, and requires LR, or some other compatible program, to open the file and apply the parametric metadata. Then, in order to make the edit permanent, the file has to be saved in some universally readable format - like TIFF. So what's the difference?

is there any discernible difference between a tiff and a jpeg straight out of the camera.

Printed to 6 x 4 inches, no.

It would seem to me (not a technical person), that an out of the camera 16 bit TIFF or an 8 bit Jpeg (extra fine setting), both cooked with the same settings by the camera (tone curve, WB, sharpening, color, NR, ect) would not appear materially different when loaded into your photo editor. If you need to apply significant editing changes, there is a danger that the jpeg could start showing posterization and/or other anomalies when pushed hard.

I haven't had the need to shoot anything but raw in the last 1 1/2 decades, and prefer to cook the files myself, which is really not hard using LR. Raw files are certainly smaller than 16 bit TIFFs.

But that makes the file edit entirely non-portable, and requires LR, or some other compatible program, to open the file and apply the parametric metadata. Then, in order to make the edit permanent, the file has to be saved in some universally readable format - like TIFF. So what's the difference?

...as stated in my comment. However I use the sidecar file method frequently when sharing raw files with another Lightroom user.

is there any discernible difference between a tiff and a jpeg straight out of the camera.

The difference between TIFF and JPG is mainly file quality, with TIFF being uncompressed (with bigger file size). However, both are affected by in-camera settings such as color customization. It's always better to shoot in RAW (or at least retain a copy such shooting in both RAW and JPG) because RAW retains untouched sensor data and the file size is also more compact than TIFF.