Tiff vs RAW

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Graham, Sep 13, 2003.

  1. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    RAW is better than TIFF because it's much faster, and it leaves you more
    room for post-processing.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' metalmangler.com |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    It shouldn't be *that* much smaller, not unless it's compressed RAW vs.
    uncompressed TIF or something.
    True again. Kind of like those 'digital negatives' we hear about.
    Here is where we part company a bit. I'd saw that it comes down to your
    intentions towards the picture. If you work in a 'slide shooter' mode where
    you expect the shot you take to be the *finished* shot with no
    post-processing, then go ahead and save it as JPG or whatever, and share it
    with your friends. I wouldn't hand out RAW files, personally, because
    they're a lot bigger than JPG with very little improvement over the look of
    them. I suppose if you're handing out the photo so that other people can
    post-process it (like, "What would you do with *this*?") then that's another
    story. If you want to have carte blanche to adjust the print afterwards
    then you should take the shot in RAW and save the finished print (the copy
    you will share) as a JPG, with intermediate saves being done in PSD or XCF
    or whatever your editor prefers. TIF doesn't have a whole lot to recommend
    it, in my opinion, except that it is better than JPG to take shots in for
    post-processing if you don't have RAW as an option..

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' metalmangler.com |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
    <http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=766040>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    Wait a minute... that doesn't sound right. 4 megapixel sensors should
    have 4 million *sets* of sensors to record 4 million pixels. That seems to
    be how the math works out. For instance, my 3.2 megapixel p&s has a maximum
    resolution of 2048x1536, which if multiplied out is about 3.15 million
    pixels. If it was 3.15 million sensors then I'd only get less than one
    million actual pixels, correct? Hmmm... mind you, it should take more
    memory to store the image if there were actually enough sensors for 4
    million pixels....
    Okay, but if the RAW file stores 12bpp then it should only be half the
    size of the TIFF, not 1/3 the size.
    Yes, although much of the information that is lost with JPG isn't
    information that we can *use*, anyway. Much, but certainly not all.
    Are you sure that RAW file isn't compressed? I mean, I know that my 3.2MP
    camera takes ~9.5MB TIFF files, so I agree with the 3-bytes-per-pixel number
    for TIF, providing the 12 MBytes number you used above was for 12 million
    bytes, not actually 12 megabytes (~12,600,000 bytes), but I'm having a hard
    time with the RAW file, at 12 bits per pixel somehow ending up being only
    3.4 MBytes. The raw information at 12 bits per pixel, even if there's only
    actually 4 million sensors, should be 6 million bytes.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' metalmangler.com |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
    <http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=766040>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 13, 2003
    #3
  4. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Guest

    And this interpolation is what causes the moire patterns and other
    oddities that crop up?
    Something to remember. For sure.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    mike 'at' metalmangler.com |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
    <http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=766040>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 13, 2003
    #4
  5. Mike Graham

    Viperdoc Guest

    What are the advantages of RAW over TIFF files shooting with a D1X and
    Photoshop? Is the quality (sharpmess and color) better from RAW files?
     
    Viperdoc, Sep 14, 2003
    #5
  6. Mike Graham

    Ed Ruf Guest

    RAW is before any in camera processing, so this is quite an opened
    question. It could change as the various in camera options are changed,
    such as sharpening. contrast , saturation etc enhancement.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Sep 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Mike Graham

    Rafe B. Guest


    RAW is about 1/3 the size of TIF.

    The problem is that it's a proprietary format, and only recognized
    by specialized programs. RAW for Nikon isn't the same as RAW
    for Canon, for example, even though "the idea" is the same.

    RAW is appropriate for in-camera storage or for archival storage
    of digital "originals."

    TIF is a universal, platform-independant image format supported
    by nearly every image viewing and/or editing program written.

    If you want to share your pix with others, don't use RAW.

    Color and sharpness aren't a function of the file format. But if you
    shoot with RAW mode, you can change either one as you
    convert from RAW to TIF (or from RAW to JPG.) And using the
    same RAW original, you can do this several times, choosing
    different parameters each time.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Mike Graham

    Gavin Cato Guest

    RAW files are smaller but same quality, and you can change white balance and
    a whole heap of other things.
     
    Gavin Cato, Sep 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Mike Graham

    Mark B. Guest

    I don't know much about Nikon, but the raw should take up much less space -
    better for memory card space and shot to shot speed. You can convert to
    tiff after downloading.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Sep 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Mike Graham

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Not at all. That would result in color shifts, and every block of 4
    pixels in the output file would be the same color. It does not make any
    sense to treat the 2 green and 1 red and blue sites in a 2*2 square as
    an output unit.
    --
     
    JPS, Sep 14, 2003
    #10
  11. Mike Graham

    Samuel Paik Guest

    Thost features are still standard (as much as anything in TIFF
    is standardized), just not widely supported.
     
    Samuel Paik, Sep 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Mike Graham

    Godfrey Guest

    That is pretty much what I said, yes. A "not supported" feature that is
    supposed to be part of the standard is considered to be "non standard in
    practice".

    Godfrey
     
    Godfrey, Sep 14, 2003
    #12
  13. Mike Graham

    Rick Guest

    Just a minor quibble.. In the case of extended-bit devices like
    scanners and digital cameras, that's not quite true, or at least
    the net result isn't the same..

    E.g. a Sony F717 has 14-bit A/D converters, but does not
    have a RAW format -- it saves images in 24-bit TIFF or
    JPEG format. So the camera remaps 42 bits of color
    information into 24. You probably won't see any degradation
    most of the time, but it's still better to have a RAW option.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Sep 14, 2003
    #13
  14. TIFF is also good for archiving your *modified* version of the
    camera-original, because you can edit something and then save it as
    RAW.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 14, 2003
    #14
  15. Mike Graham

    gr Guest

    The camera interpolates most of the different color values at a particular
    pixel based on the neighboring pixels. For example, at pixel location (x,y)
    there may be a "red" filter over that pixel. So, that records a true red.
    But the green and blue values for that location are interpolated from the
    true blue and green sensors (actually, sensors with blue and green filters)
    neighboring the (x,y) location. There's no true blue or green at (x,y), but
    your camera will interpolate the values for the blue and green at (x,y).

    You've only got 4 million pixels: 2 million green + 1 million red + 1
    million blue.
     
    gr, Sep 14, 2003
    #15
  16. Mike Graham

    Rafe B. Guest


    No point arguing, it is a fact. Look it up on the net if you like.

    Greens get two sensors because green is all important to
    human visual perception.

    Here, let me help you


    http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/Bayer/bayer.html

    http://www.high-techdigital.com/integration/Camera_t_1.htm



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 14, 2003
    #16
  17. Mike Graham

    Rafe B. Guest


    Save as RAW???

    Never heard of such a thing.

    At least not "RAW" as in the context of the current
    discusson. AFAIK, only cameras generate RAW files.
    What did I miss?


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 14, 2003
    #17
  18. Mike Graham

    Rafe B. Guest

    Does this P&S camera support RAW output files?
    If so, how big are they?

    Like I said, it's marketing math. The G2 is called a
    4 megapixel camera but its imaging device has 4
    million sensors.
    There is compression -- lossless compression -- in the RAW
    files. That's why the RAW file size varies from frame to frame.
    See above. RAW is compressed, but using lossless compression.

    Or read Canon's explanation of all this at

    http://www.colorshots.com/cs101e/html/tipps_raw.html

    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Sep 14, 2003
    #18
  19. Mike Graham

    Viperdoc Guest

    OK, after reading these posts, I've decided to shoot in RAW format (who
    could arguer for more images per card and faster read/write?)

    After manipulation in Photoshop, I will save the modified images in TIFF,
    for maximum quality for enlargement, while retaining the changes.

    Does this sound right?
     
    Viperdoc, Sep 14, 2003
    #19
  20. That's because these darned second-hand fingers left off the "'t" when
    I thought I was typing "can't edit something and then save it as
    RAW".
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 14, 2003
    #20
    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.