Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Henley, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    get from PPing RAW?

    And what about JPEG?
    Mike Henley, Nov 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Henley

    Aerticeus Guest

    Dunno for sure m8

    But if the stuff I have gleamed is robust then
    RAW - is really sensor data with minimal signal processing, is sensor and
    camera brand dependent

    TIFF - not quite as spot on as RAW as it has (obviously to get into format)
    some signal processing

    JPEG - the most highly signal processed of the bunch (look for superfine,
    fine, medium and low quality declarations in the camera spec)

    Aerticeus

    "Mike Henley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    > get from PPing RAW?
    >
    > And what about JPEG?
    Aerticeus, Nov 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nope. Process a RAW and see all the options. Some are: you can adjust white
    balance, 16-bit, Size, lots more. Raw gives you more stops of
    information....so you are less likely to block up the highlights and
    shadows.

    "Mike Henley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    > get from PPing RAW?
    >
    > And what about JPEG?
    Gene Palmiter, Nov 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike Henley

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (Mike Henley) wrote:

    >Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    >get from PPing RAW?


    16-bit TIFF will posterize the levels in the highlights. This is not
    visible immediately, but may become visible with some processing.

    8-bit TIFF will posterize the highlights much more than 16-bit, and will
    posterize the midtones and brighter shadows as well.

    >And what about JPEG?


    JPEG has the same issues as 8-bit TIFF, plus the issues of compression
    artifacts, which may be exaggerated after some processing, even if
    compression is low.

    As luck would have it, programs don't work with the RAW data directly,
    so you usually have to settle for a 16-bit TIFF or PSD format if you
    want to save your work for optimum future editing.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike Henley

    Guest

    In message <>, I,
    wrote:

    >In message <>,
    > (Mike Henley) wrote:
    >
    >>Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    >>get from PPing RAW?

    >
    >16-bit TIFF will posterize the levels in the highlights. This is not
    >visible immediately, but may become visible with some processing.
    >
    >8-bit TIFF will posterize the highlights much more than 16-bit, and will
    >posterize the midtones and brighter shadows as well.
    >
    >>And what about JPEG?

    >
    >JPEG has the same issues as 8-bit TIFF, plus the issues of compression
    >artifacts, which may be exaggerated after some processing, even if
    >compression is low.
    >
    >As luck would have it, programs don't work with the RAW data directly,
    >so you usually have to settle for a 16-bit TIFF or PSD format if you
    >want to save your work for optimum future editing.


    I forgot to mention; all of these conversion formats are also capable of
    losing highlights captured in the RAW file.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 22, 2004
    #5
  6. ..
    >
    > I forgot to mention; all of these conversion formats are also capable of
    > losing highlights captured in the RAW file.



    Well...you adjust to get those highlights down into a usable range before
    you convert from RAW.
    Gene Palmiter, Nov 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Mike Henley

    Guest

    In message <ejwod.11350$Vy.2096@trndny06>,
    "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote:

    >> I forgot to mention; all of these conversion formats are also capable of
    >> losing highlights captured in the RAW file.


    >Well...you adjust to get those highlights down into a usable range before
    >you convert from RAW.


    Yes but you have to know that. You'd be surprised how many people think
    that highlights blown in the default conversion were never captured.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike Henley

    Annika1980 Guest

    Think of cooking a nice dinner.

    RAW: You're at the grocery store and can choose or alter any of the
    ingredients in the recipe.

    TIFF: The dinner is in the oven. You may still be able to make a few changes.

    JPG: The dinner is cooked. About all you can do now is add salt.
    Annika1980, Nov 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike Henley

    Aerticeus Guest

    Sublime!

    Aerticeus

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Think of cooking a nice dinner.
    >
    > RAW: You're at the grocery store and can choose or alter any of the
    > ingredients in the recipe.
    >
    > TIFF: The dinner is in the oven. You may still be able to make a few
    > changes.
    >
    > JPG: The dinner is cooked. About all you can do now is add salt.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Aerticeus, Nov 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Henley

    Jer Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:

    > Think of cooking a nice dinner.
    >
    > RAW: You're at the grocery store and can choose or alter any of the
    > ingredients in the recipe.
    >
    > TIFF: The dinner is in the oven. You may still be able to make a few changes.
    >
    > JPG: The dinner is cooked. About all you can do now is add salt.



    You seem to have the uncanny nack of grasping the obvious. ^5

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    Jer, Nov 24, 2004
    #10
  11. (Mike Henley) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    > get from PPing RAW?
    >
    > And what about JPEG?


    If you use TIFF the demosaicing is done in your camera, but if you use
    RAW it is done in your computer. Since your computer has a more
    powerful processor, you can employ more sophisticated demosaicing
    algorithms with RAW. TIFF files are also larger than RAW files because
    it contains interpolated data generated by the demosaicing algorithm.

    The second issue relates to bit-depth. Sensor data is 12 to 14 bits
    which is properly captured by the RAW format. 8 bit formats such as
    JPEG and 8 bit TIFF lose some bit depth. 16 bit TIFF should be fine in
    this respect.

    Regards,
    Tripurari
    Tripurari Singh, Nov 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Mike Henley

    Aerticeus Guest

    Hi Tripuari

    I woder if you have insights about bit compression?

    I see in some EXIF details that some shots have 3 bit compression others
    have 4, 5 or 8 bit compression

    Any clues?

    Aerticeus

    "Tripurari Singh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (Mike Henley) wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    >> Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    >> get from PPing RAW?
    >>
    >> And what about JPEG?

    >
    > If you use TIFF the demosaicing is done in your camera, but if you use
    > RAW it is done in your computer. Since your computer has a more
    > powerful processor, you can employ more sophisticated demosaicing
    > algorithms with RAW. TIFF files are also larger than RAW files because
    > it contains interpolated data generated by the demosaicing algorithm.
    >
    > The second issue relates to bit-depth. Sensor data is 12 to 14 bits
    > which is properly captured by the RAW format. 8 bit formats such as
    > JPEG and 8 bit TIFF lose some bit depth. 16 bit TIFF should be fine in
    > this respect.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tripurari
    Aerticeus, Nov 24, 2004
    #12
  13. "Aerticeus" <> wrote in message news:<vw8pd.583$>...
    > Hi Tripuari
    >
    > I woder if you have insights about bit compression?
    >
    > I see in some EXIF details that some shots have 3 bit compression others
    > have 4, 5 or 8 bit compression
    >
    > Any clues?
    >
    > Aerticeus
    >


    No clues, unfortunately.

    -Tripurari
    Tripurari Singh, Nov 25, 2004
    #13
  14. (Mike Henley) writes:

    > Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
    > get from PPing RAW?
    >
    > And what about JPEG?


    No, in both cases. The RAW file really has more information in it.

    If the brightness range of the scene doesn't exceed the capability of
    the camera to represent in 24 bits, and if you nail the exposure (and
    don't need significant adjustments to blacks or whites), then it
    probably doesn't matter. But in nearly every other case, there's
    significant benefit to using RAW.

    I mostly don't anyway, it's enough more trouble and slower and much
    more space on my cards; so I only use it for serious photos that are
    worth the trouble, and where I anticipate needing it.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 29, 2004
    #14
  15. Speaking of TIFF, why don't more cameras offer a TIFF option for
    saving files to the flash card? RAW takes up SO much space, and JPEG
    ruins the picture. Wouldn't TIFF be a great compromise?

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Jan 23, 2005
    #15
  16. Mike Henley

    Larry Guest

    In article <SoPId.1168$>, says...
    > Speaking of TIFF, why don't more cameras offer a TIFF option for
    > saving files to the flash card? RAW takes up SO much space, and JPEG
    > ruins the picture. Wouldn't TIFF be a great compromise?
    >
    > -Joel
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >


    In the cameras that I own that do both RAW and TIF the TIF files are MUCH
    bigger files than the RAW files.

    Perhaps the firmware for COMPRESSED tif files is prohibitive.




    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Jan 23, 2005
    #16
  17. Mike Henley

    Tom Scales Guest

    "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <> wrote in message
    news:SoPId.1168$...
    > Speaking of TIFF, why don't more cameras offer a TIFF option for
    > saving files to the flash card? RAW takes up SO much space, and JPEG
    > ruins the picture. Wouldn't TIFF be a great compromise?
    >
    > -Joel
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases:
    > http://www.exc.com/photography
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >


    Nope, on my D100, which offers both, TIFF files are not only BIGGER than
    RAW, they take FOREVER to save (has to convert first).

    Tom
    Tom Scales, Jan 23, 2005
    #17
  18. >> Speaking of TIFF, why don't more cameras offer a TIFF option for
    >> saving files to the flash card? RAW takes up SO much space, and JPEG
    >> ruins the picture. Wouldn't TIFF be a great compromise?

    >
    >In the cameras that I own that do both RAW and TIF the TIF files are MUCH
    >bigger files than the RAW files.
    >
    >Perhaps the firmware for COMPRESSED tif files is prohibitive.


    Yes, it would have to be compressed TIFF. Perhaps it takes too long
    to create a compressed TIFF file? But if that's the bottleneck, how
    about a camera that saves RAW, and then converts from RAW to TIFF in
    the background, that is, when the camera isn't doing anything else
    (like taking pictures)?

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Jan 23, 2005
    #18
  19. Mike Henley

    Larry Guest

    In article <BAPId.1169$>, says...
    > >> Speaking of TIFF, why don't more cameras offer a TIFF option for
    > >> saving files to the flash card? RAW takes up SO much space, and JPEG
    > >> ruins the picture. Wouldn't TIFF be a great compromise?

    > >
    > >In the cameras that I own that do both RAW and TIF the TIF files are MUCH
    > >bigger files than the RAW files.
    > >
    > >Perhaps the firmware for COMPRESSED tif files is prohibitive.

    >
    > Yes, it would have to be compressed TIFF. Perhaps it takes too long
    > to create a compressed TIFF file? But if that's the bottleneck, how
    > about a camera that saves RAW, and then converts from RAW to TIFF in
    > the background, that is, when the camera isn't doing anything else
    > (like taking pictures)?
    >
    > -Joel
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >


    Thats kind of like making a camera thats also a toaster...not much call for
    it I'de think.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Jan 23, 2005
    #19
  20. Mike Henley

    Guest

    In message <SoPId.1168$>,
    (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

    >Speaking of TIFF, why don't more cameras offer a TIFF option for
    >saving files to the flash card? RAW takes up SO much space, and JPEG
    >ruins the picture. Wouldn't TIFF be a great compromise?


    TIFFs are larger than RAWs; even 8-bit TIFFs are larger than RAWs.

    High-quality JPEG is about 0.4 bytes per pixel.

    8-bit TIFF is 3 bytes per pixel uncompressed, and down to about half
    that, compressed, in a best-case scenario (blue sky at ISO 100).

    16-bit TIFF is double the 8-bit, and doesn't compress as well unless the
    image is very dark.

    RAW is about 1 byte per pixel, just a little more than twice the size of
    a high-quality JPEG.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James Carpenter

    Using PTLens & TIFF/Canon RAW - howto add Exif

    James Carpenter, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,266
    James Carpenter
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. ARosenblat

    jpeg to tiff and back to tiff

    ARosenblat, Dec 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    764
    Fuzzy Logic
    Jan 9, 2004
  3. Peter Frank
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,037
    Chris Cox
    Dec 13, 2004
  4. Jenna Topping

    BMP to TIFF or TIFF to BMP- any loss?

    Jenna Topping, Jan 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    677
    None40
    Jan 23, 2005
  5. Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley

    Convert TIFF-YC to TIFF-RGB

    Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley, Jun 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,325
    David J Taylor
    Jun 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page