Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


tiff v raw


15 Nov 2013 8:43PM
is raw better than tiff

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Dann 1 205
15 Nov 2013 9:16PM
Yes.
LesJD 2 151 Wales
15 Nov 2013 9:20PM
Maybe
mikehit e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2013 9:25PM
For what purpose?
If you want to do major manipulation, the image is converted to TIFF anyway so it can't be that bad.

There is always a concern that the raw data may not be readable many years from now if the manufacturer goes bust or stops supporting legacy software, so some people convert all raw to DNG and some convert to TIFF as they are more standard codings.
Dave_Canon 8 918 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2013 10:03PM
A 16 bit TIFF file should be able to store any high quality rendering from a Raw file. However, the original Raw file (or a DNG version) is capable of different renderings whereas the TIFF file is fixed. As you edit a RAW file the editing changes are not immediately applied but only applied in a single process when finally rendered. This is much better than the sequential editing of a TIFF (or any other rendered file). If you edit a RAW file say pulling back some highlights to obtain more highlight detail, the entire rendering is recalculated.

However, though RAW files have their place, so do TIFF files. TIFF files can be sent directly for printing and is a universal open source format. It is also a non-destructive format and thus a good format for archiving. RAW files are particularly advantageous at the early stages of image processing when you need to edit the local or global tonal range to cope with dynamic range and contrast. TIFF is advantageous in the latter stages for multiple layers, cloning, printing and archiving so it is not a question of one or the other as they both have their place.

I f you capture in Raw, you will almost certain end up with a TIFF or PSD file after fully editing for archiving or converting to other output formats. I personally store both the original RAW file and the final TIFF (or PSD) file. I do not store JPEG versions for long as they can always be recreated when needed from the archived TIFF (or PSD) file.

Dave
gary_d e2
6 556 13 Wales
15 Nov 2013 10:37PM
''I f you capture in Raw, you will almost certain end up with a TIFF or PSD file after fully editing for archiving or converting to other output formats. I personally store both the original RAW file and the final TIFF (or PSD) file. I do not store JPEG versions for long as they can always be recreated when needed from the archived TIFF (or PSD) file.''




That makes sense.
16 Nov 2013 3:51AM
TIFF vs RAW. There is no vs actually. You either capture RAW or scan (capture with older cameras) to TIFF. While TIFF can be derived from RAW, reverse process is not possible. So something gets lost after all. Should be no accident that in their evolution process digital cameras forgone TIFF in favour of RAWWink
capto e2
2 1.3k 7 United Kingdom
16 Nov 2013 9:08AM
The advantage of RAW or DNG is that any edits can be reversed at a later date. For special images it's always worth saving the Raw or DNG files.
indemnity 6 331
16 Nov 2013 10:07AM

Quote:TIFF vs RAW. There is no vs actually. You either capture RAW or scan (capture with older cameras) to TIFF. While TIFF can be derived from RAW, reverse process is not possible. So something gets lost after all. Should be no accident that in their evolution process digital cameras forgone TIFF in favour of RAWWink


Not true. I use a digital back, it only records IIQ Raw or TIFF.

Dave gives best explanation imho.
Dann 1 205
16 Nov 2013 2:34PM

Quote: There is no vs actually.


Ahem.

My camera offers a TIFF shooting option. Tongue
16 Nov 2013 6:28PM
Raw if you know how to edit them.
Mozzytheboy e2
4 550 3 United Kingdom
16 Nov 2013 7:40PM
YMLT

Yes undoubtedly! For me I go RAW through PSD in PSE then when I'm ready I will save to TIFF. I'll open said TIFF and save finally to JPEG if wishing to use the image online.

Mozzy
16 Nov 2013 8:39PM

Quote:TIFF vs RAW. There is no vs actually. You either capture RAW or scan (capture with older cameras) to TIFF. While TIFF can be derived from RAW, reverse process is not possible. So something gets lost after all. Should be no accident that in their evolution process digital cameras forgone TIFF in favour of RAWWink

Not true. I use a digital back, it only records IIQ Raw or TIFF.
...


I use Canon scanner, it gives TIFF as well, so what? But when I process RAW from my digital camera to TIFF in Lightroom to export into Paintshop - I have white balance and exposure compensation fixed permanently. The same happens when TIFF from your digital back becomes TIFF from image editor. Take time to read and understand this great article from Bob Atkins .
16 Nov 2013 8:55PM
And if you or anyone else means possibility of choice between RAW and TIFF on digital backs and other exotic things - well, there's everything in this world. I, for example, can change file type extention of my Canon's .CR2 to .TIFF by the means of computer in a second by simply renaming itWink
indemnity 6 331
17 Nov 2013 12:55AM
Not going to bother...sigh.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.