D300 RAW & TIFF Why?

[joshschutz]

Yesterday i was at the local camera shop drooling over the new d300. I noticed

that it shoots in RAW and TIFF. What is the point of this?

[Matt Laur]

You never know when you might want to shoot to a file format that won't require someone to have the D300-specific RAW converter installed on whatever machine they're looking at. Basically, take pictures, pull CF card, hand to user, done. Of course you could do that with JPG's, too, but they're lossy.

[juan_parm_nides]

Professional formats.

 

Regards. Juan Parmenides

[ellis_vener_photography]

It's a good question.

 

My completely unfounded suspicion is that there is a really, really big client somewhere which has in their camera requisition bids or purchasing requirements that the digital cameras they buy must have a TIFF recording mode.

[ellis_vener_photography]

And of course an unprocessed RAW (NEF) file is very different from a processed TIFF. Its like the difference between a raw potato, a baked potato (the TIFF), and french fries (JPEG).

[a few images]

Professional format is the best answer - as well as a lossless format..

 

Others, like Pentax for example produce RAW and JPG but their Pentax Labs software asks which format you'd like to save to, JPG, TIFF, etc.. Again, it's for professional work, not for posting on the net really.

[chris hughes]

Agreed. I do some professional photo work from time to time and I have a couple of

clients who demand TIFF format images. No doubt that's not uncommon in the publishing

industry. Though I prefer to post process RAW files and save them out to TIFF for delivery,

it's very likely that some applications (paparazzi for example) don't need post processing

by the photographer. Being able to save as a TIFF directly from the camera would be a

major time saver for people who need to deliver unedited files in that format.

 

As far as RAW goes, it's vastly superior to JPEG because it doesn't throw away any data

when the file is saved. JPEG compression is particularly ugly when applied too aggressively. It's easy to see even in files where a small amount of compression was used.

Further, shooting JPEG strongly negatively impacts post processing. JPEG compression is

bad enough on its own. RE-compressing a JPEG after post processing can cause highly

unpredictable and unpleasant results. In simple terms, RAW is like a camera negative. JPEG

is like a print. If you want complete control over your final image, the only way to achieve

it is to shoot RAW and post process in an application like Photoshop (your virtual dark

room).

[ctirpak]

Also, TIFF is a standard format so it will likely be around a long time from now. NEF is not

standard per se and we will all be scratching our heads in 50 years wondering how to convert

it.

[phototransformations]

I agree with and understand all the reasons for having the option to save a TIFF file. I wonder, however, how many users really need RAW. It's certainly convenient to be able to control white balance post-shoot, and to have some additional bits to manipulate to recover shadows and/or highlights, and I've seen some sharpness advantages... but to say that the difference is vast seems to me to be an overstatement. I've been surprised at how robust my JPEGs have been and often find it unnecessary to shoot RAW. Have those of you who vastly prefer RAW done comparisons of JPEG fine and RAW, both out of camera and after reasonable processing, to see if the differences really show up in web pages or prints?.

[iancoxleigh]

David, I starting out shooting only JPEG Fine on my D80 and hung with it for a while. Once I started to shoot RAW I have never looked back. I now shoot RAW only and deeply regret the limitations I have when I try to go back to a older file that is JPEG. But, I don't have time-crunches and I am shooting subjects that I know I want to work on later. Maybe JPEG works for some.

[tri-x1]

I'm still shooting with a D100 so I need every edge I can get. When we went to Europe this year I shot everything RAW. We're planning to go to China next year and even though I'll have a D300 then, I'll most likely shoot Raw. It gives you a lot more info for getting the most out of post processing.

[photo5]

When traveling or shooting a serious image, I shoot RAW+JPG. I figure it's a safety just in

case for some reason the NEF gets corrupted somehow in the workflow, I have the JPG as a

fall back. I also post the JPG files online as a sort of low-budget off-site storage backup. But

the JPG files from the D300 are so good, I'm able to let go of shooting NEF so much, unless

it's something I am documenting, or something I really care about. If I go somewhere I

always go, and shoot for fun, I might not shoot NEF.

[joshschutz]

So, we have established that the reason for the TIFF is probably for a certain client. But when the hell is Nikon going to jump on the bandwagon and start doing DNG. Or at least another file that doesn't require a sidecar. When I shoot NEF the very first thing I do is convert to DNG. Is this a bad practice?

[SCL]

I always shoot RAW because I can save it in a lossless format and post process to my heart's delight. JPEG, IMHO, is for people who do little post processing, and rarely discern the compounding losses.

[tonybeach]

For Ellis:

 

"My completely unfounded suspicion is that there is a really, really big client somewhere which has in their camera requisition bids or purchasing requirements that the digital cameras they buy must have a TIFF recording mode."

 

Probably a government agency.

 

For David:

 

"Have those of you who vastly prefer RAW done comparisons of JPEG fine and RAW, both out of camera and after reasonable processing, to see if the differences really show up in web pages or prints?"

 

Yes, many of us have had experience with both JPEG and RAW. For me, the difference comes down to all the things you mentioned and it's easier to edit RAW the files before converting them to TIFF. Another issue is that I can optimally set my camera's settings to evaluate exposure rather then to produce a JPEG. Still another reason is that I don't want to stop while shooting to change or tweak the camera's Image Optimization settings depending on what I'm shooting -- it is better done pre-conversion. Shooting in RAW is advantageous because it creates a more nimble workflow both at the time of shooting and in PP, and you never know when your tonal ramps will become posterized by the lack of bits shooting JPEG whereas shooting in RAW you capture all the subtle tonality your camera is capable of capturing.

[lee_ricks]

Because for forensic work sometimes the mere conversion of RAW to TIFF or JPEG is considered manipulation. As are the decisions required to get a RAW file ready for use in any other format. For those applications where no manipulation except a very few and very common in camera adjustments are allowed. TIFF is ideal for this.

 

I also have a couple of publishers that request it.

[ilkka_nissila]

I can imagine a lot of reasons for in-camera TIFFs.

 

NEFs are camera model specific which can be a huge problem 50 years down the road. JPEGs are meant for image transmission e.g. over the internet, and the files have artifacts and loss of fine detail. Yes, I have compared NEFs and JPEGs on my cameras and accidentally shot some JPEG fine, and the loss in bit depth was significant in a backlit photo. Color accuracy and noisein the shadows can be severely degraded by shooting JPEG.

 

NEF has more bits per channel so it has an advantage for editability. I would like to see 12- or 14-bit TIFFs but they're unfortunately 8-bit or 16-bit, in this case 8-bit. If I could get the full bit depth in an in camera TIFF, that's what I would shoot. Then I wouldn't have to use a raw converter on the PC and would be able to open the file with any software.

[skyjammer]

Ellis,

 

On a slight tangent from the current discussion, I have to say that your NEF/TIFF/JPEG analogy or comparison to an uncooked potato, baked potato, and french fries has to be one of the best mental visualizations I've ever considered in trying to explain or define the formats.

 

Funny but effective nonetheless.

 

regards,

 

-Ade

[ellis_vener_photography]

Anthony:

"Probably a government agency."

 

Well yes I was going in that direction but didn't want to be explicit.

 

I think Lee hit the nail on the proverbial head with "Because for forensic work sometimes the mere conversion of RAW to TIFF or JPEG is considered manipulation. "

[Brad_]

"Because for forensic work sometimes the mere conversion of RAW to TIFF or JPEG is

considered manipulation. "

 

But actually, getting a TIFF file out of a camera, that's what happens. TIFF, like PSD and other

formats, is an image container with an interpretation imposed (camera settings for vividness,

sharpness, spaces, etc). TIFF does not mean untouched unmosaiced RAW sensor data...

[Brad_]

Yikes, should be:

 

TIFF does not mean untouched *mosaiced* RAW sensor data...

[chris hughes]

"I wonder, however, how many users really need RAW. It's certainly convenient to be able

to control white balance post-shoot, and to have some additional bits to manipulate to

recover shadows and/or highlights, and I've seen some sharpness advantages... but to say

that the difference is vast seems to me to be an overstatement. "

 

 

Not at all. Again, a RAW file is more like a traditional negative than it is a print. The

advantage to a RAW file is that it's a blank slate in terms of post processing. It allows you

to work with the actual data that came off the sensor. Additionally, RAW files are

processed in such a way that the original data is not changed. RAW editors save

manipulations to a text file that tells your photo editor what changes were made, but

doesn't touch the original data. When you're ready to save, you choose a format that works

best for you. The problem with TIFF and JPEG is that they're compressed formats. They

throw data away at the camera level and include edits (saturation, sharpness and so forth)

applied by the camera. In camera processing is fine if you don't want to post process your

images much. BUT if you do a lot of post processing a RAW file is necessary. You can edit

a TIFF or a JPEG and resave it but your processing options are limited by the in camera

processing and, more critically, resaving introduces another layer of compression and that

can lead to very unpredictable and unattractive results.

[tonybeach]

For Chris:

 

"The problem with TIFF and JPEG is that they're compressed formats."

 

TIFF is not compressed, it smaller than a RAW file converted to 16 bits because it is 8 bits; JPEG is 8 bits and even smaller precisely because it is compressed. Other than that, I essentially agree with what you wrote.

[Brad_]

>>> TIFF is not compressed, ...

 

It is in fact compressed; and there are different formats available. There are lossy and

lossless compression algorithms...

[Brad_]

>>> it smaller than a RAW file converted to 16 bits because it is 8 bits;

 

Not true on that either - TIFF supports 16 bit samples ... Where do you come up with this?