TIFF or RAW when photographing weddings

[susan_winn]

<p>I was using a Nikon D200 to shoot weddings. I always shot in RAW. Now I have upgraded to a D700. This camera has the option to shoot in TIFF. I don't have any experience with TIFF and was wondering which one would be a better choice when photographing weddings and such?</p>

[rnt]

<p>TIFF isn't really a desirable option unless you need the format for some compatibility reasons. The files will be quite a bit larger than the alternatives.</p>

<p>NEF and compressed NEF files are virtually lossless and will take up far less space than TIFF. Others may disagree, but I see nothing to gain and a lot of (storage space) to lose by saving your images in TIFF.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>RAW, no question. Smaller, faster, and far more information recorded - which is nice if you're using one of Nikon's RAW converters.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>RAW - lets you make adjustments to the images easily after the fact without jumping through hoops. TIFF is better than jpeg because it encodes the entire 12 or 14 bit colour data, but not as useful as the NEF (RAW) files which record everything.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>RAW for all the reasons mentioned. </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Of course, Susan, you might consider that if you can get the exposure and white balance close to correct, then you don't need raw <strong>at all</strong>.....just use highest quality jpeg.<br>

Many will try to say that can't work as jpeg is a lossy format....and it is. Which is why you do all the post on a quick copy of the file. If you have to work on it more than on one occasion, you simply save it as a tiff...which is <strong>not </strong>a lossy format.<br>

Fact is that todays cameras are more likely to give you an excellent jpeg, than you are to get the most from a raw image unless you have considerable expertise in editing, and have all this extra time to simply...er...uh.....waste<br>

After all....using a modern quality camera, such as you do, you would find the camera will give you excellent jpegs at least 80-90 % of the time.<br>

I don't say you need never shoot in raw......but, given the performance of modern cameras, it is largely un-necessary. Regards, Robert</p>

[wclark5179]

<p>I always use RAW when capturing photographs. It's my workflow.<br /> I may be wrong, I consider RAW files like undeveloped film and I want to process the images, albeit with my computer and PS and not let the camera decide by processing into jpegs.<br /> My photography takes me to many different situations when at a gig and I find it more valuable, at least for me, to capture entirely in RAW.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>As Bob says, shoot Raw unless you have a very specific reason to shoot TIFF. To understand it a bit better, every camera captures "Raw" information. Most cameras and DSLR's in particular, will allow you to record or capture this Raw data: your Raw file. The TIFF is an <em>image</em> file. So the camera takes the Raw data and <em>processes</em> the data to create an image file. At this point, white balance adjustments, sharpening, and the tonal curve are "baked into" the image, although none of the information for <em>this particular</em> rendering is thrown away. Hence the TIFF is a lossless format, but for only <em>one</em> rendering of the image. And then finally you have the JPEG which is lossly: it now throws information from that single rendering away leaving you with a virtually identical image file to the TIFF, only a smaller file size since there is less information. Working backwards, the JPEG has the least amount of information available to edit. The TIFF will have far more. And of course the Raw will be the king-of-the-hill in terms of editing. Contrary to some beliefs, the Raw file <em>isn't</em> a license to get your exposure or white-balance wrong. Many might think this because the Raw does give you a great deal of latitude over both exposure and white-balance. But beyond that, the Raw file is the <em>linear</em> data. No curves applied. Both the TIFF and the JPEG are "baked" data: a curves adjustment has been applied. If I don't like that tonal adjustment, with the Raw file I can change it <em>without losing data</em>. That can't be done with a TIFF of JPEG. Being able to adjust all of these parameters allows me to create <em>different</em> renderings of the <em>same </em>image, even if that image was "properly" exposed in the first place. Finally, if you are using something like Apple's Aperture or Adobe's Lightroom, there simply isn't any advantage what-so-ever to shooting JPEGs.... as a wedding shooting. There might be other shooting situations where JPEG makes more sense, such as a sports shooter trying to capture the maximum number of frames per second. </p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>RAW. It captures much more information than TIFF or JPEG.</p>

[jonathan_davila]

<p>shoot raw, you'll never look back.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Never used a D700, surprised it has TIFF though. Didn't think anyone used that anymore.</p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>Raw all the way. Jpeg is tempting, camera processing is much better than a few years ago, but sometimes that 10-20 percent that raw is better is when it matters most. Almost every photo with a bride and groom in it is a test of a camera's dynamic range. plenty of chances to land in the zone where raw is better.Most photo programs allow import presets for raw will make the raw look almost like a jpeg when you first see it, but with your own choices. so jpeg isn't that much faster unless you are churn and burn. </p>