Raw v. Tiff

shoot raw format only to tweak the best image’s colors and tones out from it with a raw converter and don’t mind about the longer workflow. generate tiff format later with the raw converter or else let the camera does the tiff for you but quality is under the control of the camera and it’s irreversible.

"dorayme" wrote in message

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

—
dorayme

"dorayme" wrote in message

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also because they are huge).

Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.

The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored preprocessed.

Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy) jpegs.

Bruce.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.
Tiff is the larger file sise of the two.
(Raw is larger than JPEG but smaller than TIFF).

Secondly, why Shoot in RAW?
Because of the high degree of control that one retains over the image. Having made the decision about ISO, aperture and shutter speed combination other ‘in-camera variables’ at the time of shooting remain under our control.
Once having captured a scene in RAW one has the ability to virtually revisit the scene and make changes to the camera settings, these include:

Exposure Compensation
White Balance
Colour Control
Tonal Response
Lens Aberration
Vignetting
Noise Reduction

With TIFF files, the processing isn’t ‘lossy’ but the image captured remains ‘as is’ without the advantages of adjustment and editing as to be found in RAW.

Dave

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

If you want the in camera software to do the processing for you, use TIFF. If you want to be in control of the entire process, use RAW.
In my camera (not Nikon) , TIFF files are far larger than RAW.

Bruce. wrote:

"dorayme" wrote in message

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also because they are huge).

Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.
The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored preprocessed.

Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy) jpegs.

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact ‘lossy’, not lossless. TIFF’s may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider: Camera generated TIFF’s are 8 bits, so you’ve already gone down from 12 or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

In article <yhq_j.2031$>,
"Bruce." wrote:

"dorayme" wrote in message

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also because they are huge).

Yes, the man with the camera did complain about that, he wanted to dump raw onto the computer of someone at the function I referred to above. But could not without the proprietory software. I suggested he carry the software on a flash stick for when he travels.

Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.
The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored preprocessed.

Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy) jpegs.

Sounds sensible. Depends on how fussy one wants to be I guess. Perhaps you are implying that if the camera produces a high quality Tiff, it still has made irreversible or difficult-to-reverse decisions and that a skilled digital photographer will generally do better with raw and making various decisions.

Perhaps for most people Tiff will be fine.

—
dorayme

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.

Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it varies from camera to camera and software to software?

—
dorayme

In article <1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact ‘lossy’, not lossless.

Do you mean that information has been lost and cannot be recovered, information which would otherwise be contained in a raw file?

TIFF’s may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider: Camera generated TIFF’s are 8 bits, so you’ve already gone down from 12 or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess, in the end, it depends loss of print or screen quality that is actually able to be noticed and felt. I have no idea on whether people can look at nicely made pics and tell that they are not high quality jpgs rather than Tiffs or prepared from Raw…

—
dorayme

On Mon, 26 May 2008 18:03:56 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.

Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it varies from camera to camera and software to software?

Simply as test in order to be able to supply exact figures, I shot a RAW file from my desk and saved as a TIFF.

This is the sizes:
DSCF7257.jpg…………………………………5,538,827 DSCF7257.RAF……………………………….19,143,872 DSCF7257.tiff………………………………….27,404, 416

RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600

Dave

dorayme wrote:

In article <1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact ‘lossy’, not lossless.

Do you mean that information has been lost and cannot be recovered, information which would otherwise be contained in a raw file?

Exactly. Most cameras do not support TIFF any more, because RAW is the better choice. TIFF is from ‘the old days’, when RAW had not been ‘invented’ yet as a file format and TIFF was the only choice to get images from the camera without lossy JPEG-compression.

TIFF’s may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider: Camera generated TIFF’s are 8 bits, so you’ve already gone down from 12 or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess, in the end, it depends loss of print or screen quality that is actually able to be noticed and felt. I have no idea on whether people can look at nicely made pics and tell that they are not high quality jpgs rather than Tiffs or prepared from Raw…

You won’t see the difference between JPEG and TIFF in most cases. But you will see the difference between RAW and JPEG/TIFF. Easily. Someone who knows how to use a RAW converter properly will get *much* better results. Starting from RAW you can get better detail in shadows and highlights for example.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.

Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it varies from camera to camera and software to software?

TIFF can be compressed losslessly, but I don’t think many cameras do that. Most cameras that support TIFF save those files uncompressed, and then a simple calculation will tell you the file size: It’s the number of pixels x 24 bits. An uncompressed RAW file on the other hand is the number of pixels x 12 bits or 14 bits, because RAW has only one channel per pixel.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

dorayme wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

In simple terms…
RAW is ALL of the information captured by the sensor and stored down to the memory card as-is. It’s the pure image data from the sensor. TIFF is a proprietary image format readable by more or less all computers. To save an image as a TIFF, your camera must process the pure data and discard a lot of it. You have no control over what it discards.

With RAW, all the processing is done once you load it onto your computer, so you have much more control over what gets kept and what gets discarded. Once you process it, you then save it as a TIFF or Jpeg yourself so it can be viewed on almost any other computer.

No computer can read a RAW file by default as RAW is not a standardised format. Every manufacturer has their own RAW format, and many have slightly differing formats from one model to another.
To view a RAW file on your computer, you need to install appropriate RAW conversion software which is supplied along with your camera on CDRom. However, if you’re running Photoshop, you might be lucky enough to find your camera’s format is supported by photoshop, so no need to install another converter.

If you want to get the best from your photography, shoot in RAW mode. You get better dynamic range, better colour depth, less noise, and more tweakability.

—
http://www.SavePentney.co.uk
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Save-Pentney

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 18:03:56 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

I disagree about Raw being bigger than Tiff.

Well, with the Nikon, according to the owner, the raw were in the vicinity of 12 MB per shot whereas Tiffs were more like 7MB. Perhaps it varies from camera to camera and software to software?

Simply as test in order to be able to supply exact figures, I shot a RAW file from my desk and saved as a TIFF.

This is the sizes:
DSCF7257.jpg…………………………………5,538,827 DSCF7257.RAF……………………………….19,143,872 DSCF7257.tiff………………………………….27,404, 416

That’s processing the RAW to a TIFF yourself in the computer? Presumably you’re saving it down at maximum quality?
I’d imagine the file size difference reported by the OP might be a result of the in-camera quality settings ~ although I admit that I am guessing somewhat.

RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600

Nice camera.
I’m a fan of Fujis myself. I use an S5600 and an S6500fd. Oh to have enough disposable funds to buy myself a nice shiny S5 pro.

dorayme wrote:

In article <yhq_j.2031$>,
"Bruce." wrote:

"dorayme" wrote in message

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

One big huge difference is that tiff is a standard, while raw is not. Nikon raw files are not compatible with Canon raw files, etc.. So anyone wanting to read a Nikon raw file needs a compatable display program. Unless your friend also has a Nikon camera, you would never email a raw file (also because they are huge).

Yes, the man with the camera did complain about that, he wanted to dump raw onto the computer of someone at the function I referred to above. But could not without the proprietory software. I suggested he carry the software on a flash stick for when he travels.

Tiff, on the other hand, is a standard, and is also lossless like raw.

The other difference is that raw is a raw dump of the sensor with no processing at all, hence the name raw. So as you move them to your PC, they need to be processed for color balance, etc., while tiffs are stored preprocessed.

Generally you would create raw files with your camera and then transfer those to your computer and save them as Photoshop psd files. From there you could create tiff files if needed, or even the much smaller (but lossy) jpegs.

Sounds sensible. Depends on how fussy one wants to be I guess. Perhaps you are implying that if the camera produces a high quality Tiff, it still has made irreversible or difficult-to-reverse decisions and that a skilled digital photographer will generally do better with raw and making various decisions.

Perhaps for most people Tiff will be fine.

You’ve pretty much got the jist of it.

But don’t write off TIFF or Jpeg mode completely.
There are still some applications where RAW just isn’t suitable as it’s not fast enough, and even professional photographers still use Jpeg to get the fast write time.

Sports photography is a classic example.
Sports photographers have to catch as many shots of a fleeting piece of action in a short burst, so they use Jpeg mode as that allows them to write far more frames per second to the memory card than RAW mode allows. That’s also why most sports photographers tend to use Canon DSLR’s, as they generally have the fastest burst shooting mode. That’s the most frames writen to the memory card per second.
The trade off is, as always, quality against speed.

Personally, I’d recommend not getting involved in RAW right off the bat, but instead concentrate on getting to know your new camera, and getting nicely composed images with good color.

Once you are at that point, experiment with RAW and see if you can achieve even better images – my feeling is that the difference is there, particularly with noise in the shadows, and it is subtle. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Sam"

This is the sizes:
DSCF7257.jpg…………………………………5,538,827 DSCF7257.RAF……………………………….19,143,872 DSCF7257.tiff………………………………….27,404, 416

That’s processing the RAW to a TIFF yourself in the computer? Presumably you’re saving it down at maximum quality?

Yes, which is fair compared to the RAW file which is always maximum quality. And if the file size reported by the OP is somewhat compressed, file sizes can not be compared.

I’d imagine the file size difference reported by the OP might be a result of the in-camera quality settings ~ although I admit that I am guessing somewhat.

RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600

Nice camera.
I’m a fan of Fujis myself. I use an S5600 and an S6500fd. Oh to have enough disposable funds to buy myself a nice shiny S5 pro.

Glad to see I am not the only Fuji fan here:-)))

Fact no. 1 is I bought my first Fuji when digital photos was relative new, and that was my first digital camera of course. Thereafter I bought a FinePix s5000 when that model hit the market, and I read reviews about the FinePix s9600 days after it was developed and waited for it. When it landed in South Africa, I was one of the first to buy it. The s5000 though, keep on being one of the best cameras out, and I gave it to my wife.

So, fact no. 1 – I never had any kind of camera other than Fuji. Fact no. 2 – Fuji is the best camera I ever had.

The S5 pro… tell us about it when you buy:-)

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact ‘lossy’, not lossless. TIFF’s may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider: Camera generated TIFF’s are 8 bits, so you’ve already gone down from 12 or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess the tiff standard supports modes that not all cameras support. Here is says:

"….is a flexible image format that normally saves 8 or 16 bits per color – red, green and blue – for a total of 24 or 48 bits…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

Bruce.

"Dave" wrote in message

Sam"

This is the sizes:
DSCF7257.jpg…………………………………5,538,827 DSCF7257.RAF……………………………….19,143,872 DSCF7257.tiff………………………………….27,404, 416

That’s processing the RAW to a TIFF yourself in the computer? Presumably you’re saving it down at maximum quality?

Yes, which is fair compared to the RAW file which is always maximum quality. And if the file size reported by the OP is somewhat compressed, file sizes can not be compared.

I’d imagine the file size difference reported by the OP might be a result of
the in-camera quality settings ~ although I admit that I am guessing somewhat.

RAF=RAW. Camera used is a Fuji Finepix s9600

Nice camera.
I’m a fan of Fujis myself. I use an S5600 and an S6500fd. Oh to have enough disposable funds to buy myself a nice shiny S5 pro.

Glad to see I am not the only Fuji fan here:-)))

Fact no. 1 is I bought my first Fuji when digital photos was relative new, and that was my first digital camera of course. Thereafter I bought a FinePix s5000 when that model hit the market, and I read reviews about the FinePix s9600 days after it was developed and waited for it. When it landed in South Africa, I was one of the first to buy it. The s5000 though, keep on being one of the best cameras out, and I gave it to my wife.

So, fact no. 1 – I never had any kind of camera other than Fuji. Fact no. 2 – Fuji is the best camera I ever had.

The S5 pro… tell us about it when you buy:-)

My friend who runs a pro photography company uses an S5 as his main camera, and has an S3 as a backup.
He’s another Fuji fan.

In article <1ihjzv8.72w08o1pom0ziN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <1ihjj84.1hc6hsg1ohczvmN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact ‘lossy’, not lossless.

Do you mean that information has been lost and cannot be recovered, information which would otherwise be contained in a raw file?

Exactly. Most cameras do not support TIFF any more, because RAW is the better choice. TIFF is from ‘the old days’, when RAW had not been ‘invented’ yet as a file format and TIFF was the only choice to get images from the camera without lossy JPEG-compression.

TIFF’s may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider: Camera generated TIFF’s are 8 bits, so you’ve already gone down from 12 or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess, in the end, it depends loss of print or screen quality that is actually able to be noticed and felt. I have no idea on whether people can look at nicely made pics and tell that they are not high quality jpgs rather than Tiffs or prepared from Raw…

You won’t see the difference between JPEG and TIFF in most cases. But you will see the difference between RAW and JPEG/TIFF. Easily. Someone who knows how to use a RAW converter properly will get *much* better results. Starting from RAW you can get better detail in shadows and highlights for example.

Thanks for this Johan. On a practical level, it does not affect me (my digital does jpgs only and I still use film with my Nikon gear) but it is very interesting that Raw is something more modern and that one can get "much" better results.

—
dorayme

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

Hey there dorayme! The easy way to explain the difference is that TIFF is one way to process an image. The picture you take with your camera is processed by taking the ISO setting you used, the white balance you used, etc. and processing all of these settings into a TIFF image.
The RAW picture means that all of the information that was processed in the TIFF image is not processed in any way. The "raw" data is stored as data on the memory card and then downloaded to your computer. Having this raw data means that you can change these settings in the computer. If you had the white balance set to tungsten light, you can remove that setting and instead, set it to sunlight, or whatever light you want. With the TIFF image, this setting is locked in and can’t be changed, since the TIFF processing used the tungsten light setting when it processed the image and made it into a TIFF image.
By having the raw data available with no processing done to it, it’s possible to change a number of the settings you used on the camera after you’ve taken the picture. You can manipulate this raw data in a number of different ways, so it’s as if you are taking the picture over, only now you can control the settings from your computer.
It’s kinda like taking the picture, viewing the results in RAW and saying, "Wait, I didn’t want to use this white balance so I’ll take it out and insert this white balance. Okay, now I want to change this setting or that setting, so I’ll take out what I used and insert this other setting."

Talker

In article ,
Talker wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

Hey there dorayme! The easy way to explain the difference is that TIFF is one way to process an image. The picture you take with your camera is processed by taking the ISO setting you used, the white balance you used, etc. and processing all of these settings into a TIFF image.
The RAW picture means that all of the information that was processed in the TIFF image is not processed in any way. The "raw" data is stored as data on the memory card and then downloaded to your computer. Having this raw data means that you can change these settings in the computer. If you had the white balance set to tungsten light, you can remove that setting and instead, set it to sunlight, or whatever light you want. With the TIFF image, this setting is locked in and can’t be changed, since the TIFF processing used the tungsten light setting when it processed the image and made it into a TIFF image.
By having the raw data available with no processing done to it, it’s possible to change a number of the settings you used on the camera after you’ve taken the picture. You can manipulate this raw data in a number of different ways, so it’s as if you are taking the picture over, only now you can control the settings from your computer.
It’s kinda like taking the picture, viewing the results in RAW and saying, "Wait, I didn’t want to use this white balance so I’ll take it out and insert this white balance. Okay, now I want to change this setting or that setting, so I’ll take out what I used and insert this other setting."

Talker

This is a very nice clear explanation! Thanks for it.

—
dorayme

Mike Russell wrote:

Personally, I’d recommend not getting involved in RAW right off the bat, but instead concentrate on getting to know your new camera, and getting nicely composed images with good color.

Once you are at that point, experiment with RAW and see if you can achieve even better images – my feeling is that the difference is there, particularly with noise in the shadows, and it is subtle.

Same here! I have been suggesting Photoshop users to spend the valuable time to master the Photoshop which can do much more than RAW can instead of trying the easy short cut.

Yup! for my younger but old brother (in his 60’s) who just got his first Canon DSLR few months ago, I suggest him to learn to use LightRoom (few quick adjustment) instead of Photoshop cuz I don’t think he can learn Photoshop.

Bruce. wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Actually, a TIFF generated by a camera is in fact ‘lossy’, not lossless. TIFF’s may not be compressed, but there is another thing to consider: Camera generated TIFF’s are 8 bits, so you’ve already gone down from 12 or 14 bits RAW to 8 bits TIFF.

I guess the tiff standard supports modes that not all cameras support. Here is says:

"….is a flexible image format that normally saves 8 or 16 bits per color – red, green and blue – for a total of 24 or 48 bits…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats

Make that "the tiff standard supports modes that *NO* camera supports". AFAIK, there is no camera that supports 48 bits TIFF.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

"dorayme" wrote in message

In article ,
Talker wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

Hey there dorayme! The easy way to explain the difference is that TIFF is one way to process an image. The picture you take with your camera is processed by taking the ISO setting you used, the white balance you used, etc. and processing all of these settings into a TIFF image.
The RAW picture means that all of the information that was processed in the TIFF image is not processed in any way. The "raw" data is stored as data on the memory card and then downloaded to your computer. Having this raw data means that you can change these settings in the computer. If you had the white balance set to tungsten light, you can remove that setting and instead, set it to sunlight, or whatever light you want. With the TIFF image, this setting is locked in and can’t be changed, since the TIFF processing used the tungsten light setting when it processed the image and made it into a TIFF image.
By having the raw data available with no processing done to it, it’s possible to change a number of the settings you used on the camera after you’ve taken the picture. You can manipulate this raw data in a number of different ways, so it’s as if you are taking the picture over, only now you can control the settings from your computer.
It’s kinda like taking the picture, viewing the results in RAW and saying, "Wait, I didn’t want to use this white balance so I’ll take it out and insert this white balance. Okay, now I want to change this setting or that setting, so I’ll take out what I used and insert this other setting."

Talker

This is a very nice clear explanation! Thanks for it.

I would add that PhotoShop CS2 and CS3 allow at least four stops of latitude (+2 or -2) with the exposure in addition to the white balance when using their Camera RAW converter. Even blown highlights can be "recovered" to some extent.

just bob wrote:

"dorayme" wrote in message

In article ,
Talker wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

Someone had a Nikon digital at a function I attended yesterday. Very nice and all, I notice it had a "Raw" format as well as "Tiff". What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff? (I know two disadvantages, not all computers can read Raw but most can read Tiff. And Raw is even bigger in file size to Tiff.)

Hey there dorayme! The easy way to explain the difference is that TIFF is one way to process an image. The picture you take with your camera is processed by taking the ISO setting you used, the white balance you used, etc. and processing all of these settings into a TIFF image.
The RAW picture means that all of the information that was processed in the TIFF image is not processed in any way. The "raw" data is stored as data on the memory card and then downloaded to your computer. Having this raw data means that you can change these settings in the computer. If you had the white balance set to tungsten light, you can remove that setting and instead, set it to sunlight, or whatever light you want. With the TIFF image, this setting is locked in and can’t be changed, since the TIFF processing used the tungsten light setting when it processed the image and made it into a TIFF image.
By having the raw data available with no processing done to it, it’s possible to change a number of the settings you used on the camera after you’ve taken the picture. You can manipulate this raw data in a number of different ways, so it’s as if you are taking the picture over, only now you can control the settings from your computer.
It’s kinda like taking the picture, viewing the results in RAW and saying, "Wait, I didn’t want to use this white balance so I’ll take it out and insert this white balance. Okay, now I want to change this setting or that setting, so I’ll take out what I used and insert this other setting."

Talker

This is a very nice clear explanation! Thanks for it.

I would add that PhotoShop CS2 and CS3 allow at least four stops of latitude (+2 or -2) with the exposure in addition to the white balance when using their Camera RAW converter. Even blown highlights can be "recovered" to some extent.

With CS2, I can go to plus or minus 4 on Fuji RAF files. Of course it does very much depend on how good your cameras dynamic range is, but if your camera supports RAW mode, chances are it does have a fairly good dynamic range.

—
http://www.SavePentney.co.uk
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Save-Pentney

On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:42:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

What is the advantage of Raw over Tiff?

I came to this video just now, and while looking at it
I recalled this thread, I thought to add the URL here.
http://shapeshed.com/journal/camera_raw_or_jpeg/