Tiff or Raw, and why?

[olivier_reichenbach]

I've been shooting digital for a good while now, and I've always used either high quality

Jpeg or Raw. Never Tiff. Suddenly, it dawns on me: why would you use Tiff, and its huge

files, when you have access to uncompressed Raw, and its much smaller non-treated files,

plus the ability to tweak almost everything? Are there any advantages in shooting Tiff files?

Maybe there's something I don't quite grasp here.

[chris_ladoulis]

Your inclinations are correct, there's no reason to capture TIFFs. The option was probably designed by the hardware engineers 'just in case' the software engineers didn't develop RAW converters/utilites. If you don't want to capture in JPG, there's only one thing to do: shoot RAW.

[mark u]

The advantage to TIFF is that it is a supposedly widely recognised file format standard though in my experience not all TIFF files are created equal. You will have the image data of a RAW file (plus redundant space because most cameras don't produce 16 bit data), but you won't be dependent on the availability of a particular RAW interpreter to feed your image manipulation software. RAW is not a standard across manufacturers, or even across models from the same manufacturer.

[jespdj]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/">Look at the newest article by Bob Atkins.</a>

<p>TIFF is not very useful in-camera. It takes up a lot more space than JPEG and RAW. The only reason someone might want to use it is because you don't want JPEG compression and you don't want to do a lot of processing on the computer - with TIFF, the camera applies sharpening, contrast, saturation settings etc. to the image.

[tony novak-clifford]

I'll jump in with an opinion contrary to what others have posted thus far...

 

As a busy commercial studio photographer...I almost always shoot .tiff files. For 99% of my clients...Tiff is the preferred format for delivery for work destined for publication.

 

I spend quite a bit of time prior to actualy shooting testing and balancing for color, exposure, etc. to get things the way I want them..usualy in the "fine" .jpeg compression format for the download speed...then switch to Tiff for the actual shots, especialy when the subject(s) are people.

 

I have found that using this method of workflow greatly reduces (almost eliminates) the need for extensive and time consuming post processing of image files. ( I have also found that it's far easier to justify my "creative fees" for my time spent behind the camera than it is to get the client to understand and pay for my time billed at the computer.) Once the shoot is completed, all my assistant or I have to do in most cases is minor sharpening...which we often process in batches..and then the archiving/CD burning. The time saved in post-processing allows me more time behind the camera, more time for marketing and more time spendt growing my business...less time bogged down in front of the computer managing image files...and for me...that's a HUGE advantage.

 

That said...when shooting product still life...I make it a point to deliver each and every shot in three different formats...one high-res .jpeg, one corrected Raw file and one Tiff, giving the AD or graphic designer all they need for every form of potential publication...from web use to print.

[anders_widman]

In response to Tony Novak-Clifford's answer I would like to say that many consumer digital cameras that do offer TIFF files do not store more than 8bit/channel whereas the RAW file still has 12bit/pixel (note, not 12bit/channel as RAW files are stored b/w).

[bobatkins]

Tony

 

You say you supply "corrected RAW files". How do you correct a RAW file?

 

My understanding is that the only way to open and work on a RAW file is via a Bayer interpolation. If you then correct that image, you can't then save it back as RAW data. You can't "back interpolate" to RAW sensor data, at least not in a lossless manner so that when it's reopened it will be different from the version you saved.

[tony novak-clifford]

Forgive me. Bob...you are correct...once a Raw file is opened and corrected it has to be saved in another format.

 

I misspoke...I meant that we supply corrected .Tiff and .jpeg files as well as the "raw" Raw file.

 

Regarding the 8 bit files vs. 12 bit...this has yet to be an issue. The time spent in pre-production tweaking the capture end (I use Nikon Capture) in most cases eliminates the need for major post editing and correction. Most of the images are destined to be converted to 8 bit .tiff anyway for press at 300-305dpi.

[darren m green]

Nobody seems to have hit the nail on the head here so let me try.

 

When shooting TIFF you only have 8bit funcionality (8bits = 256 shades of gray)

When shootin RAW You have 16 bit functionality (16bits = over 65,000 shaades of gray)

 

You see much better color rendetion and tonality especially if you do as much editing as

possible in 16bit mode. Photoshop CS is a dream for this. Give up shooting TIFF.

 

Good Luck.

[graham_gardner1]

Whenever possible I shoot in RAW, I also work to 'get it right in camera'. Even minor

changes to TIFF files in PhotoShop will compromise quality. RAW should always be the

rather than the exception IMO. Personally I can't think of a reason / advantage to shoot in

TIFF