what's the advantage of using TIFF vs. JPeg on C5050?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by m_., Mar 16, 2004.

  1. m_.


    After a while, I decided that RAW in this camera model (Olympus C5050)
    does not give me much advantage over Jpeg. But is the TIFF a better
    format to shoot? If yes, can you tell me what these advantages are?
    I now shoot with Jpeg and, after transfer into my computer, I save
    the original files (Jpeg without saying) and also "manipulated" files
    with TIFF.

  2. The main advantage to TIFF vs. RAW in ANY camera is you do not need the makers proprietary RAW software to view and adjust the image. The main disadvantage is I would think the files would be huge compared to a RAW file.
  3. JPEG images are a compromise from the outset, since they employ lossy compression to write the original image. In other words, some of the original image detail is irretrievably lost from the outset. That said, (so far) I only shoot JPEGs (my only choices are JPEG or RAW).

    TIFFs can be either compressed or uncompressed, but the compression methods used are (usually) lossless. (There's a TIFF format with JPEG compression that is probably lossy.)

    The downsides of using TIFFs relate to their much larger file size: fewer images can be shot before a memory card is full, longer file transfer times to -- and greater disc space consumption on -- permanent storage.

    I would recommend taking multiple test shots of the same subject/scene, in both JPEG and TIFF mode, and comparing the results: file size, transfer time, image quality, etc. Ultimately, it's a personal decision.

    PS: You can safely save a manipulated image file in JPEG format, so long as you plan no further manipulation to that particular image.
  4. Is it possible to shoot in JPEG (to save space on the camera memory card), and to save in TIFF in the computer where memory isn't so scarce, and then work on it with no loss?
  5. If your Oly's RAW converter supports 16-bit files another advantage to shooting RAW is better tonal-gradations in your images due to there being more information stored in them. You can also adjust many aspects of your image files after you have taken the picture using the RAW format, i.e. increase or decrease exposure, color-temperature, saturation, etc. If you shoot using JPEG, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got at the time of exposure. RAW files are very large and can be a pain to deal with, storage-wise. I tend to shoot RAW for "serious" images and jpeg when I'm just fooling around. Incidentally, I do not own and have never seen Oly's RAW converter, so it's possible I'm wrong about its feature-set. What I said I believe holds true for Canon. Best wishes . . .
  6. m_.


    Bill: Yes, I can shoot JPEG and then save as TIFF in the computer.

    Thanks everyone. Now let me pick further: my camera has the option of uncompressed JPEG. Is that true uncompressed?
  7. This topic has been thoroughly discussed on Photo.Net. Perhaps a little summary is in order.

    RAW images are as close to a negative that you will get with a digital camera. No corrections of any sort are applied to the RAW image, including white balance or sharpening.

    JPEG images employ a lossy compression - image data is thrown away to save space. Any statement that JPEG images are as good or better than RAW files simply means you aren't looking close enough.

    If you have a camera that outputs RAW files, software to convert those files usually comes with the camera. That fact that it is proprietary is moot.

    TIF files, compressed or full, contain more data than JPEG files, but less than RAW files. In fact, TIF conversion often throws away extra bits/channel saved by RAW files. Furthermore, the imposition of in-camera corrections, including white balance, limits the ability to make corrections in Photoshop.

    There is no advantage to saving TIF files when RAW files are much smaller. Large files take longer to process in the camera, and much more storage room. IMO, it is better to shoot in JPEG mode than TIF mode. You just have to be careful that all the settings are correct.

    It is prudent to save JPEG images, downloaded from a chip or camera, as TIF files, simply because you lose more data each time you save a file as a JPEG, but not resaving TIF files.
  8. Shooting in RAW and converting to TIFF is a pain and results in either 18MB or 36MB files (with my camera) depending on if you want to work with 8 or 16 bit images.

    I do it when conducting aerial photography or other pretty serious stuff though.

    There are so many disadvanatges that I usually regret using RAW.

    I hear that the RAW converter engine in Photoshop CS makes things smoother however.

    JPEG is pretty good but you have to watch for compression every time an image is saved. I save important images as TIFF using LSW(?) compression. Otherwise I can wind up with files in excess of 50 MB which creates a multitude of problems. One is that my printer won't deal with files that large.....a big problem.

    In a nutshell....I would recommend shooting in JPEG unless the shots have enhanced and significant value as something larger than a 12 x16.

    Sometimes I take over 1500 shots a week and prefer not to spend my life dealing with RAW. I honestly can not see significant difference as an 8x10 and I question those who claim to do so since my vision is 20/13.

    Just my opinion and experience though.

    If you want the finest detail in each shot.....use a 5x7 camera or something like that. OK.....I am tired.
  9. m_.


    Thank you, Edward and John.

    Edward: I see what you said but I tend to agree with John. I don't see any significant difference, if any. And working with RAW files from this camera and PS7 (I haven't got in CS yet) is a real pain. I have to spend a lot of time just to convert files before I can see the images on screen. And I have to convert each of them and save as TIFF before I can have any use of them. Hardly I ever change WB or anything after the shot was taken. And Olympus RAW does not allow you to change the exposure after the shot is taken so all the advantages from a typical RAW file are diminished.

    Once again, thank you all for your thoughts. I think I will stick with JPEG when I use this camera.
  10. Wentong Lin said, "Olympus RAW does not allow you to change the exposure after the shot is taken so all the advantages from a typical RAW file are diminished." Is this accurate? This is the first time I've heard this, so I just want to be sure. I'm considering buying a C-5050.

  11. The new Minolta A2 has a setting for recording RAW + JPEG images.
  12. I've been shooting RAW with my new Olympus S350 for a couple of months now, and have used both the PS import plugin and the Olympus "Master" software that came with my camera to convert files to .tif and .psd formats. As I understand it, tiff and jpeg formats process the raw information they get from the camera sensors, and this processing results in various levels of information loss, or degradation. RAW is just that,ALL the raw information. The advantage is YOU get to decide what kind of and how much processing your image gets.

    The Olympus Master software does a quick job, in batches, of converting photos to tiff, but it only converts them to 8 bit. The PS import plugin keeps the 16 bit format, but I've not been able to find a way yet to import more than one at a time, and therefore am unable to take advantage of the batching features in PS. It's a long and painful process after a lengthy shoot to convert this way. The quality and depth of information I'm left to work with is worth it though, at least to me.

    One last thought. Jpeg's are processed quite a bit by the camera and are usually ready for viewing, while raw files are chock full of information that's ready to be processed, and usually won't look as good as the jpegs comparatively just out of the camera. This wouldn't be a valid or useful comparison.

  13. I have been shooting RAW for weddings with this camera (yes - don't you DARE laugh) for a couple of years. Recently however, I got a bit tired of the seemingly endless work hours of converting several hundred images to either JPEG or TIFF and decided to do a once-and-for-all test.

    I simply put the c5050 on a tripod, shot part of a tree trunk with a lot of detail in the bark. (Camera base settings: ISO at 64, automatic white balance, sharp, saturation and contrast all at zero, auto-focus, no fill flash.) Three shots; RAW, TIFF and SHQ (which is jpeg). Did some minor editing in photoshop cs2 - basically to get all three to being as close to simillar as possible on-screen. Then cropped to 8x10 full-frame at 266dpi, and cropped a 4x5inch section again to 8x10 full-frame. (In my guessing, this results in appearance as if it were a section of a 16 x 20, correct?) Looked carefully with a magnifying glass, and honestly, I can't justify the time anymore I've spent converting the RAW files... (sigh)
    The SHQ mode (or JPEG) will do just fine. No noticable difference.
    Now, this opinion is based on my experience with "real-life" clients: I know what they're looking for - good expressions, sharp, clear photos, the right timing, etc. And this can easily be done with JPEG shooting.
    As for the ones still laughing at the thought of using c5050 for a professional wedding - grab one, and try it for yourself. The lens is remarkably sharp and will produce excellent photos. Granted, startup time is not as fast as an digital slr, lens range is limited - but WHO CARES?!?!?! Do you want to make money, or spend every dime you earn on the latest and best? Truly - the person behind the camera is STILL the weakest link in the chain, know what I mean?
  14. I know it's a little late in the game but I recently got a C5050. Love the camera, but I can honestly say there is quite a difference between shq jpg's and the raw files the 5050 produces, particularly with certain shades of colors. I've done some extensive testing and found that with certain shades of green the in camera processing simply cannot render them accurately no matter what settings and ev compensation I set. Light greens are rendered more dark and with a strong color cast under certain cloudy conditions especially. I've found that no amount of curve tweaking can get exactly the shade of green from the bushes. However, shooting in raw mode and using silkypix and acr the colors are rendered correctly right away with no tweaking except auto modes. If anyone is still using the 5050 I highly recommend at least giving raw a try, the difference IS there.

Share This Page