Advantages of shooting TIFF?

[gary payne]

<p>I shoot RAW (NEF) only, and edit using Nikon NX2. I convert the edited NEF files to JPEG for viewing on my computer, displaying on the web, and for printing.<br>

A friend who shoots JPEG was recently advised by a reputable custom printer to shoot and edit TIFF and deliver TIFF files to him for final editing and printing. This has set me to wondering:<br>

While I certainly agree that shooting JPEG limits post production options, I can see no advantage in shooting and editing TIFF files rather than NEF. Am I missing something here?<br>

However, would I it be better to shoot NEF, edit NEF, but convert the edited images that are to be printed into TIFF for printing rather than converting them to JPEG? <br>

I know that TIFF files are huge, even compared to NEF, but that is not a consideration in my thinking. Your thoughts are appreciated.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>TIFF files have no compression/detail loss like JPG files. But, like JPGs, they have limited correction ability. Best bet is always shoot/edit RAW and save your files as TIFFs.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>One advantage of TIFF over NEF (or any other proprietary format) is that its a well-established graphic file standard format that's been around quite some time. So there will be many graphic file viewer/editor software programs able to work with a TIFF file. That expands your choice of editing options and lets you use a wider range of software tools.</p>

<p>TIFF also has the advantage over lossy compression formats like JPEG, in the sense that TIFF is considered a lossless format, either compressed or non-compressed. If you capture the shot in TIFF format, you do not lose any graphic information like you do with JPEG. This can be a deciding factor IF your situation demands that you capture & retain all fine detail in your subject.</p>

<p>On the negative side, most TIFF formats I have seen described, like say on a Nikon D-300, capture 3 color channels at 8 bits color depth. (R=8bits, B=8bits, G=8bits). So, the total possible # of discrete color hues that you can get from RGB 8 bit TIFFS is..<br>

2^8th * 2^8th * 2^8th = 16,777,216 different colors (across the whole color spectrum)</p>

<p>Compare that with say NEF format, on the D-300, which can be set to a greater bit depth per color channel, like 14 bits..<br>

2 ^14th * 2^14th * 2^14th = 4,398,046,511,104 different colors (across the whole color spectrum)</p>

<p>so the extra bit depth allowed by NEF options on the D-300 result in a greater range of granularity in capturing subtle color tones & hues. Whether or not this difference is actually visible & discernable in a printed picture is another question.</p>

<p>But, on the downside, if you shoot NEF, then the image file editor you use MUST be able to load and work with that particular level of NEF (or any other proprietary format). And you are restricting your range of options as far as what s/w tools you can use to edit that NEF.</p>

<p>I've read that if you take an image shot with RAW (NEF) or TIFF and compare it with an image shot in JPEG, and make prints of each, and then examine the prints up close with a magnifying glass, that you WILL be able to detect loss of detail in the JPEG print. That visible loss of detail represents a discernible loss of image imformation, ie less quality. Whether or not that is acceptable depends on your requirements, your venue, your customers.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Anything is better than JPEG. However, TIFF files are three times (or more) the size of RAW files in the same camera, and take longer to process and transfer to the memory card. Is TIFF even an option any more?</p>

[dwight200]

<p>TIFF's have a 16 bit option, so you have a large color space. However, I wouldn't save TIFF files straight from the camera. I'd save the NEF file since the camera is really designed for that format. You can then change it to TIFF in post if necessary.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I convert all .NEF files to .tif after I have done all the post processing to them. Uncompressed .tif files will maintain their quality much better than .jpg files will for any further modification. If you are going to save an image as a .jpg, it should be the very last format you use to save it for viewing.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Wow Alan good job. I am a totally digi challenged and was able to get the whole concept you wrote about. I have been reading around on this stuff, but it all kind of mushes together. Go Alan.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>There's no advantage to you to produce in-camera TIFs. The camera does it just the same way NX does it, with the white balance and picture controls applied. You will never have more complete data than you have in the NEF. You might as well just use NX. </p>

<p>Do consider delivering TIFs to magazines and other clients who will go to print. The editor needs a lossless image both for best quality (which reflects on you), and for the cases where commonplace adjustments are needed (as in the conversion to CMYK). </p>

<p>I capture images to TIF for further work in photoshop. TIFs can come in 16-bit and even 32-bit formats, so they are robust for post production work. [i save PSD files with photoshop adjustments embedded, but you can also save most PSD files as layered TIFS as well.] I make JPGs for the web only in the final step.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only advantage to in-camera TIFFs is if you're on a deadline, and are sure you can produce a file that needs absolutely no editing to be ready to print, and the printer accepts TIFFs. It will produce noticeably better fine gradation of subtle hues than a JPEG. But if there's no deadline pressure, there's probably no advantage to shooting in-camera TIFFs if raw is an option.</p>

<p>I mention this fairly often and I'm not sure how many folks actually bother to check for themselves. But take identical photos of a sunset using maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and raw. Unless your dSLR is an exceptional model, the JPEGs you produce from the raw or TIFF will show more fine gradation and subtle transitions in the sky, compared with the in-camera JPEGs. The differences may be very subtle and noticeable only with large prints or magnifying on screen larger than 100%.</p>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>In Alan's comparison of a Tiff and Jpeg with a magnifier, I was always under the impression that the first generation convertion was indistinguishable quality, but jpeg to jpeg was very visible loss of quality.<br>

As for Luke's assesment that Tiffs should be sent to magazines, I always thought they wanted Jpegs. I haven't done any magazine work since going digital, and wondered about this.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>I think magazines have become a bit more lax about accepting JPGs in the last few years. I think this is partly because they are getting a lot more pixels. A good 12+MP JPG looks plenty good when reduced down to 800x1200 and printed. </p>

<p>I still try to send TIFs in the belief that I'm promoting the best possible quality. I don't know how the publisher will do the CMYK conversion for example. </p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>A RAW file has no color info only 14bit grey info and the info about rhe color of the filter in front of the pixel.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Compare that with say NEF format, on the D-300, which can be set to a greater bit depth per color channel, like 14 bits..<br />2 ^14th * 2^14th * 2^14th = 4,398,046,511,104 different colors (across the whole color spectrum)</p>

 

</blockquote>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>There is absolutely positively no image-quality advantage to shooting tiffs in camera as compared to shooting NEFs and converting.</p>

<p>And although I might agree with the deadline crunch reasoning Lex mentions... If you are on THAT tight a deadline you are probably likely to email a jpeg to make that tight deadline.</p>

<p>As far as the quality difference... I defy any of us to tell the difference in final printed output between a well-shopt JPEG and a well-shot TIFF.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>If I liked the color and everything else direct from my camera and didn't use Nikon software I might consider shooting 16 or even 8 bit tif. But 16 bit tif files are pretty big. You can probably also take advantage of the lens correction built into the camera, whereas with say importing NEF into Lightroom you are out of luck. Of course JPEGs have this advantage too, but they are 8 bit and lossy.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>TIFF is more of a historic relic in digital cameras; if you don't have time, shoot JPEG, if you have time, shoot raw. TIFF doesn't have the adjustability of raw but not the compression and speed of JPEG either. The in-camera JPEG is shot in a certain color space, so color-wise it's just as "well profiled" as the TIFF. Image quality with TIFF is a little bit higher than with JPEG, but is kind of a moot point since raw is still much better and processing raw is not a big deal.</p>

[gdw]

<p>Gary, here is my procedure. I edit everything possible in NX2 and this very frequently is all the editing needed so I save the NEF. If additional editing is required I will save the NEF so as to archive the editing done and then Save As TIFF. I do the additonal editing on the TIFF and save it.<br>

When it comes to JPG, if there is not a TIFF I know that all the editing is done in NX2 and will use the NEF to resize if needed and convert to JPG. If there is a TIFF then I use the TIFF for resizing and converting to JPG. I do not generally save JPG files. If another JPG is needed in the future I will go back to the NEF or TIFF. I do not see any reason to store a TIFF file if all the editing is done in NX2. I do not see any reason to store a JPG because a new one can easily be obtained from either the NEF or the TIFF. I feel that always gives me the best possible JPG when that is what is needed.</p>