Are any digital cameras producing tiffs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003.

  1. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    Hi All,

    I ~know~ I can find the answer to this question on the net if I spend
    enough time looking ok?

    My question is- Do any digital cameras produce high quality TIFF
    images rather than the bastardised JPEGS?

    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nixon 5000 and 5700 and a few more
    David Stubberfield, Nov 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ray Murphy

    Bill Guest

    Fuji S602 but only in 6MP (interpolated from 3MP) mode. Files are about 18MB

    Bill, Nov 25, 2003
  4. Most high-end consumer cameras produce tiffs. Tiffs lose information
    compared to RAW, so they don't make much sense in cameras that can produce
    RAW files.

    You can find out quite quickly. Go to and point at
    "Cameras" on the left and select the mfr. Click on the camera of interest,
    and look at the "Uncompressed format" field. It will say "No", TIFF, RAW, or
    "TIFF, RAW". For example, the Contax dSLR can produce either tiff or raw.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 25, 2003
  5. Ray Murphy

    Marli Guest

    all good cameras will do TIFF or at least RAW which you can convert
    Marli, Nov 25, 2003
  6. Olympus E-10 and E-20 will produce TIFFs right out of the camera.
    gilbert grape, Nov 25, 2003
  7. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    RM: I'm not sure what you mean about tiffs "losing" information. Tiffs
    cannot lose anything once they exist. Are you saying that some tiffs
    produced by digital cameras are not a "first generation image" and
    therefore lose something that was in the original capture?

    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
  8. Ray Murphy

    Harry Da Hat Guest

    My old Fuji 4900z produces nice TIFF files. Uncompressed, EXIF info, the
    industry standard. What the camera produces, not what the jpg looks like.
    That's what I work with in an image program.

    Harry Da Hat, Nov 25, 2003
  9. Ray Murphy

    Chris Brown Guest

    A TIFF has been interpolated, white balanced and converted to a logatithmic
    respresntation in a viewable colourspace, as well as quite probably
    sharpened. It is therefore lossy compared to the camera raw file.
    Here's a useful analogy:

    Camera raw - unprocessed negatives.
    TIFFs - processed negatives
    JPEGs - prints
    Chris Brown, Nov 25, 2003
  10. Ray Murphy

    Charlie Self Guest

    Bill responds:
    Whew. My Minolta D7i produces a RAW file that is about 10 megs, while the TIFF
    is about 14.1. Bad enough.

    I may do more chekcing of RAW, but it's a PITA to go through the extra step
    with the Minolta RAW program.

    Charlie Self

    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
    promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
    Charlie Self, Nov 25, 2003
  11. Ray Murphy

    Tony Lewis Guest

    Minolta Dimage 5 (and presumably all subsequent) - but the TIFF is
    bigger than the RAW so arguably I could process the RAW to produce a
    better TIFF rather than let the camera do it.
    Tony Lewis, Nov 25, 2003
  12. Ray Murphy

    Steve Guest

    Yes, this is exactly right.

    A RAW file is the raw unmodified data dumped directly from the sensor. It
    contains 12 bits of information per channel and hasn't been modified at all
    by the camera.

    A TIFF file would have been passed through the first stages of processing in
    camera. White balance, sharpening and other in-camera processing are applied
    to it before saving.

    In this instance, the only advantage a TIFF has over a JPEG is that it has
    not been JPEG compressed.

    Some high end cameras may save 16bit per channel - I don't know for sure.

    Steve, Nov 25, 2003
  13. Ray Murphy

    Arg Guest

    Nikon 5400 has TIFF output,
    Arg, Nov 25, 2003
  14. Ray Murphy

    Arg Guest

    Are you saying that some tiffs
    Exactly. It's called RAW and its exactly what comes out the sensor. Not only
    that the kicker to boot is they are smaller than than TIF! The downside is
    you have to use a program to convert them to TIF, but generally the major
    software packages are better at RAW to TIFF conversions than your camera is.
    If you want highest possible image quality - go for RAW. The next best is
    TIF and finally JPG. It takes some thinking about, that RAW are smaller than
    TIF, but they are the "naked image" of the CCD. The overhead is the extra
    processing required.

    Arg, Nov 25, 2003
  15. Ray Murphy

    Mark Roberts Guest

    "Once they exist" is the catch. The camera's sensor originally produces
    a RAW image and converts it to a TIFF, which can potentially contain
    less information than the RAW file.

    The RAW file of single-color (RGB) pixels at 12 bits each, has to be
    converted to full-color pixels at 8-bits per color (24 bits per pixel)
    before the TIFF can exist.

    What you're losing is some latitude; highlights can end up being blown
    out with a TIFF when the original RAW image was fine.
    Mark Roberts, Nov 25, 2003
  16. Olympus 5050Z does

    Chris Meekins, Nov 25, 2003
  17. Ray Murphy

    Don Stauffer Guest

    My Olympus gives me the option of TIFF or JPEG.

    Don Stauffer, Nov 25, 2003
  18. Fuji FinePix S2 Pro -

    RGB-TIFF images in the following resolutions:
    4256 x 2848
    3024 x 2016
    2304 x 1536
    1440 x 960

    Highest resolution TIFF is 35.5MB

    Also does RAW at 4256 x 2848 which can be converted later with the supplied
    conversion software to TIFF.

    Camera also does all the above resolutions in 2 JPEG compression (fine and

    Pretty happy with the results I'm getting with this camera.

    Alan Rutlidge, Nov 25, 2003
  19. Most do. The SD9's largest 16-bit TIFs approach 100MBs per image file. You
    really need to print using a 16-bit TIF to a true 36-bit colorspace printer
    for pro quality results, with any camera. Costs $5-10 per foot these days.
    George Preddy, Nov 25, 2003
  20. Ray Murphy

    Ray Murphy Guest

    RM: Thanks for that.
    I take this to mean that the RAW file is the equivalent of a
    continuous tone conventional camera negative and that it is useless
    for processing in the graphic arts industry until it is converted into
    a TIFF.

    I find it easy to believe that a software package with heaps of ram in
    a fast computer can do a better job than any inbuilt computer in a

    I suppose it stands to reason that some sort of conversion from the
    RAW format is required in order to view the photo in a digital camera
    or make prints immediately.

    Ray Murphy, Nov 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.