Re: 10D RAW Conversion Question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Eppstein, Aug 20, 2003.

  1. In article <>,
    "Ted Rogers" <> wrote:

    > I just shot a cardful of RAW images and am using the Canon File Viewer
    > utility to convert the RAW images. I have a choice between Exif-TIFF
    > (8bit/ch) and TIFF (16bit/ch) and also Exif JPEG. I know that TIFF will give
    > me a better result but what is the difference between these two options?


    I don't see a lot of benefit for using TIFF for converted images.

    > Also, as a matter of interest, do you tend to archive the RAW images once
    > converted or do you simply delete them?


    Archive them. Think of them as the equivalent of a film negative.

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
    David Eppstein, Aug 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Eppstein

    Flycaster Guest

    "David Eppstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > "Ted Rogers" <> wrote:
    >
    > > I just shot a cardful of RAW images and am using the Canon File Viewer
    > > utility to convert the RAW images. I have a choice between Exif-TIFF
    > > (8bit/ch) and TIFF (16bit/ch) and also Exif JPEG. I know that TIFF will

    give
    > > me a better result but what is the difference between these two options?

    >
    > I don't see a lot of benefit for using TIFF for converted images.

    [snip]

    Huh? Why on earth would you want to shoot RAW, and then compress the result
    before you even start to work on the image?

    Maybe I'm missing David's point, but I disagree. If the intent is to have a
    master archival file, I would argue that a non-lossy, high bit Tiff is the
    best way to go. I *never* go back to the original RAW file since I've
    already extracted everything I can from it during the conversion. But, and
    this is very important, I also use a good conversion program that allows me
    a lot of control over the file settings. IMO, the Canon conversion software
    is very, very poor.
    Flycaster, Aug 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Eppstein

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I don't see a lot of benefit for using TIFF for converted images.
    >


    You don't? How about no compression artifacts? How about 16 bit color
    space? If you are just going to convert to JPG in the computer, there's
    really no point in shooting RAW in the first place.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Aug 20, 2003
    #3
  4. David Eppstein

    Don Coon Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > I don't see a lot of benefit for using TIFF for converted images.
    > >

    >
    > You don't? How about no compression artifacts? How about 16 bit color
    > space? If you are just going to convert to JPG in the computer, there's
    > really no point in shooting RAW in the first place.


    Sure there is, Todd. For example, you get a chance to correct white balance
    problems. We've all probably screwed up by not resetting the white balance.
    Even poor me once ended up with a dozen blue cast birthday pictures because
    I had the camera set on tungsten instead of Auto or Flash. Because I was
    shooting in JPEG mode I was never able to get them fully corrected.

    I agree that compressed TIFF is a good archive settings, however.

    Cheers,

    Don

    >
    > --
    > ________________________________
    > Todd Walker
    > http://twalker.d2g.com
    > Canon 10D:
    > http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    > My Digital Photography Weblog:
    > http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    > _________________________________
    Don Coon, Aug 20, 2003
    #4
  5. In article <3f43b10e$>,
    "Flycaster" <> wrote:

    > > I don't see a lot of benefit for using TIFF for converted images.

    >
    > Huh? Why on earth would you want to shoot RAW, and then compress the result
    > before you even start to work on the image?


    I don't compress the result before I even start to work on it. I
    compress the result after I finish working on it. I also save the raw
    file, and a description of what I did, so if I really needed a 16-bit
    tiff in all its glory I could probably reconstruct one.

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
    David Eppstein, Aug 21, 2003
    #5
  6. David Eppstein

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I shoot raw so I can do color balancing, exposure correction, etc.,
    > after the fact rather than in real time. The extra bits of information
    > per pixel also helps avoid artifacts in postprocessing, especially when
    > (as I sometimes do) I postprocess in 16-bit mode. And it's also very
    > convenient to be able to come back to an old raw file and reprocess it
    > if I decide the previous processing wasn't as good as it could have
    > been.
    >
    > But, once that's all done and I have a processed image, I don't see a
    > lot of benefit to be gained from storing it as a huge tiff instead of a
    > much smaller jpeg. Typically I use quality level 11 (on the Photoshop
    > scale) at which point I can't see much in the way of artifacts even
    > when I blow up to 300% or so. Do your tiffs really look any better
    > than your jpegs when you print them?


    I don't archive TIFFs -- they take up too much space. I archive RAW
    files which are 1/3 the size of a TIFF from the 10D (just over 6 megs
    vs. just over 18 megs.) Yes I can see that shooting RAW gives you
    color/WB control after the fact but IMHO if you are just converting to
    JPG, you are losing a lot of the advantage of RAW. As for the TIFFs
    looking better, there really isn't much difference up to 8x10 but when
    you get larger than that, yes you can see the difference.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Aug 21, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <3f443d92$>,
    "Flycaster" <> wrote:

    > "David Eppstein" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > [snip]
    > > I don't compress the result before I even start to work on it. I
    > > compress the result after I finish working on it.

    >
    > If the only "work" you ever do on an image is in the conversion program,
    > then I see your point. Frankly, however, even the best conversion program
    > is no substitute at all for what can be done in Photoshop. If you used it
    > on a daily basis as I do, you'd believe far differently, not only about
    > saving to JPEG but about manipulating high bit images as well.
    > Irrespective, I think it is just silly to convert a RAW file directly to
    > JPEG with storage being so cheap today.


    Perhaps you misunderstand my workflow. I do use Photoshop. In fact, I
    use Adobe's Camera Raw plugin, so there is no need to worry about file
    formats and losslessness thereof until *AFTER* I have finished
    processing a file in Photoshop.

    Once I have finished, I save the converted file as a JPEG.
    And keep the original CRW as well, of course.

    > >I also save the raw
    > > file, and a description of what I did, so if I really needed a 16-bit
    > > tiff in all its glory I could probably reconstruct one.

    >
    > Again, the implication is that you rely solely on the conversion program to
    > perform your image manipulation.


    Well, this is true, because the conversion program is Photoshop.

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
    David Eppstein, Aug 21, 2003
    #7
  8. David Eppstein

    Stephen Guest

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:19:15 GMT, Todd Walker <>
    wrote:

    >I don't archive TIFFs -- they take up too much space. I archive RAW
    >files which are 1/3 the size of a TIFF from the 10D


    This seems appealing, but I am concerned about longer-term archiving
    issues. In 10 years time, will my image processing software be able to
    read a proprietary Canon format from 2003? Seems that TIFF is a better
    bet, as it is much more widely used.

    So for now I've been archiving TIFFs.

    It is also possible to run all the TIFFs through Photoshop (or similar) and
    compress them down using LZW compression (lossless), which reduces their
    size very significantly. However, I understand that this is a nonstandard
    TIFF format so I guess I should stick to plain (large) TIFF for optimum
    compatibility.
    Stephen, Aug 22, 2003
    #8
    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. n

    Re: 10D RAW files question

    n, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,100
  2. Antti Heiskanen

    Intel P4 or AMD system for image editing and RAW-conversion?

    Antti Heiskanen, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    956
  3. Ted Rogers

    Re: 10D RAW Conversion Question

    Ted Rogers, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    302
    Flycaster
    Aug 21, 2003
  4. Mark Roberts

    RAW conversion/viewing software question

    Mark Roberts, Oct 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    348
    Mark Roberts
    Oct 19, 2004
  5. Mark Roberts
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    288
    Jeremy Nixon
    Oct 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page