RAW to TIFF

I was talking about saving and re-saving JPEGs. At 100%, I don't think you would lose anything.

But I agree that a computer should be able to do a better job than a camera, although the camera processor is dedicated to that and not much else.

G

Well I read the link Martin and I'm now convinced that RAW is the only way to be sure you can be confident to extract the best image from your camera. I think that's what you were suggesting but I might be wrong.

I couldn't invest lumps of money in equipment and lots of time taking shots to then let some piddly chip in a camera render the image as JPEG. The way I read that article by doing so you inherently limit your options and almost certainly fail to get the best possible image. But again I may well be wrong and will happily be corrected!

Each to his own obviously and as has been said spotting the difference is probably very hard but that's no reason not to at least let something like SilkyPix do the rendering with its presets which must surely give a better image than the camera?

Mike

Hi Mike,
You are right. Using raw always give you the choice to save afterwards in jpegs. If you desire so. Any rawconverter will do a better job in converting to jpegs as a camera would do in camera. The irony is that until a camera saves to jpeg, it is basicly a raw file. But.......,then it is baked, cooked and overturned to something they call jpeg.
But hey....... i am a raw believer, can't help it.

I would have to agree, the camera probably uses a less sophisticated algorithm, but those things are getting pretty quick so I can't say for sure.

The benefit of processing on your computer is that YOU get to choose how your image looks before it is converted to lossy JPEG.
If you need to adjust the white balance for instance, you will get much better results using a RAW converter on your computer than trying to adjust the 8 bit JPEG generated by the camera.

Now, plenty of people just like the results of JPEG out of the camera or their skills are high and they do not need to make many adjustments. So shooting JPEG is fine.

I'm not going to add to any debate on RAW v.s. JPEG, there are simple facts about each, but as to which is "better"... to each his own.

You are not wrong according to DPReview - who have lots of technical knowledge, and agree with you.

However, the quality of the K10D's JPEGs look excellent to me so far. With this camera I don't think there is much to be gained by shooting in RAW if you don't intend to alter the image.

JPEGs frm the *ist DS, on the other hand, were noticeably poorer than RAWs with Silkypix's default settings, in my opinion - in terms of sharpening and noise at least.

Personally, even with the K10D, I like to reserve the possibility of altering the image in the best way possible, and I find RAW conversion convenient enough, so RAW remains my default choice. I'll probably only shoot JPEGs when I'm running out of card space.

Certainly you can do more, and do it more finely, with RAW files than JPEGs - when using good software.

Thanks for all the info everyone. My initial question "why save RAW to TIFF" has still not been properly explained. I can see no advantage as a JPEG seems to be fine with no loss of quality if you do anything else to it.
I really don't see the point of taking in JPEG then converting to TIFF. Why start with a lower quality then convert to higher?

It sounds like with the K10D, you might not have a need to convert to TIFF, but with other models you would do so in order not to lose information over time and use of opening and closing the image? I think that is what I am understanding as I read throught this.

Quick outline:
1. RAW - full 12-bits per pixel. Loads of scope for exposure compensation, white balance adjustment etc.

2. TIFF - from camera it's 8-bits per pixel, from a RAW converter it's either 8 or 16-bits per pixel. 16bpp is required if you are using a high colour space (like ProPhoto), and/or if you intend to do a lot of post processing (like HDR, or severe curves).

3. JPG - a "lossy" image type, even at 100% JPG splits the image into a luminance component and a colour component. The colour contains only 11% of the blue channel. Consequently there is little scope for post processing and heavy editing. Try pushing the colour balance too hard and you'll see compression artifacts appear (even if it was saved at 100%).

The bottom line is: if you just process and print then JPG is fine. If you do some editing, then JPG might be fine (it often is) and TIFF-8 will probably be ok. If you're pushing the Photoshop boat out or doing serious HDR stuff, then TIFF-16 from the RAW file is the one to go for.

Clearer?
Matt

To really clarify your thinking ask yourself why you'd ever needlessly throw away information from an image which is the very first thing you do when anything saves an image as JPEG.

Personally I print from TIFF or from Silky and send JPEG to the web where everything gets mangled anyway and you have no control at all over how your image is seen.

Mike

I tend to use PSD for my post processing because TIFF files are just HUGE!!!

I really don't like working with 200MB TIFF files. Then again I have some ongoing micro work with 30 layer PSD which need to be combined into one shot with a large DoF which are nearly that big.

Matt,
Much clearer, thanks.

Tyr,
TIFF's are huge and I would think that if you have the finished product it would be safe to convert to JPEG and trash the TIFF.

Mike,
As above really. If you can't see any difference on the screen between a JPEG and a TIFF, would it make a difference when printing?

Oh I think there's quite a difference between screen and printed copy. Indeed getting the printed copy to match what you see on screen seems to be something of a black art in itself. I had terrible trouble until I bought a Canon printer, bought Canon inks and used Canon paper!

Also I don't think I'd print at A4 (which sadly is as big as I can afford to go) from a JPEG I used for the Internet.

I'll be interseted to hear what others have to say.

Looking at http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2126/2277210297_1bf669647a_o.jpg and holding the A4 print in my hand they're different pictures. The print reveals a number of flaws damn it.

Mike

No you wouldn't, not if you wanted a good print anyway!

Image>Image Size is the place to go to finalise your image size. For print, 300ppi and the appropriate size. For web, 72ppi and probably something between 800 and 1000 pixels wide on the longest side, depending on use. You don't use the same file for both print and web.

My simple method. Shoot JPEG. Copy files to computer - these are the unopened originals, the negatives if you like. Open file to be worked on. Make adjustments needed. Save as TIFF as an A3 sized 300ppi image, ready to print. Anything else, be it a smaller print or a web image, is made from the finalised TIFF and saved in its appropriate form.

That's not what MX Veteran was asking. He said if a JPEG and a TIFF look identical on screen, wouldn't they look identical when printed. Not, would the printed version look the same as the screen version.

Simple answer is yes, a printed jpeg and a printed Tiff would be identical, assuming they are actually identical on screen.

Dan

Beg pardon you're quite right I misunderstood.

Mike