- This topic is empty.
RAW vs TIFF
-
I convert my RAW pictures through the Canon software to TIFF at the moment. I am using Photoshop elememts 2 and some other softwares at the moment. None of them can open the RAW files.
Do I loose some major quality?What Canon camera are you using?
What Canon software are you using to convert the RAW file?I wouldn’t say that you’re losing quality as such. Every RAW file has to be converted first anyway. The beauty of using RAW is that it affords you the opportunity to get the best quality TIFF or JPEG file. The only quality loss I can think of might be if you’re converting to an 8-bit file instead of a 16-bit file, in which case it is possible to loose subtle gradations in the images, particularly in the highlights. Oh, and the fact that you have to compress a large colour gamut into a smaller one such as sRGB or AdobeRGB!
There isn’t really any software that can “open” RAW files as such – they all have to perform some sort of conversion. Whether you do the conversion through a dedicated RAW converter or whether you use software that has built in functionality to read RAW files is largely down to personal choice. My own preference is to use DPP a a first choice and C1 as a second choice. Most of the time I try to avoid using PS if I can but that’s not because of any idealistic objection to manipulation but rather because I’m lazy and prefer to avoid the bother of having to open yet another large file on my ageing Windows 2000 machine.
I have Canon 300D and using the viewer software which came with the camera.
Thanks.Personally I don’t think you’re gaining anything by converting the images to TIFF, unless you do a reasonable amount of post-processing work on them. I normally just convert to JPEG after I’ve made all of my important corrections in DPP – if I need a larger file with more info at a later stage I can always go back to the original RAW file and convert it again into a TIFF file if necesary. But most of the time I don’t see the need to create resource intensive TIFF files when JPEG’s to the job just fine. That’s one of the big advantages of shooting RAW compared to shooting JPEG – the ability to output the file differently according to different needs.
I must try the Image Viewr method of converting my RAW files sometime – it is said to result in a conversion more closely matched to the way the camera converts RAW files when shooting JPEG’s. This would lead me to believe that conversion through DPP is ultimately a better option.
I would only use a TIFF if I was wanting to produce a MASSIVE print, or submitting to a stock agency/publisher.
SteveD wrote:
I would only use a TIFF if I was wanting to produce a MASSIVE print, or submitting to a stock agency/publisher.
I was thinking along the same lines myself. For what little extra you get from a TIFF file over a carefully handled JPEG, the overhead simply isn’t worth it, IMHO.
From reading some very interesting things from Yervant,Monty Zucker and Bambi Cantrell they believe that as long as you get it right first time as j-peg theres no need to use raw.Reason being they feel is that it frees the buffer up considerably when speed shooting only in J-Pegs,all of which i tend to agree.
Although i shoot raw in low light where i think i may need to compensate later if needed. Also try rawshooter to convert Raw files,great job and its FREE…
Ben 8)ben wrote:
From reading some very interesting things from Yervant,Monty Zucker and Bambi Cantrell they believe that as long as you get it right first time as j-peg theres no need to use raw.Reason being they feel is that it frees the buffer up considerably when speed shooting only in J-Pegs,all of which i tend to agree.
The debate of Raw -v- Jpeg ranks up there with discussions on Film -v- Digital or Canon -v- Nikon as being one of the most hotly debated topics in photography. Yes, it’s true, that Jpeg files are smaller and will therefore write to the card faster and you can store more images per card when shooting Jpeg. But just as there are upsides, there are downsides too. It’s also true that there are many successful and well known photograpers, such as those mentioned above, that shoot Jpeg, just as it’s true that there are also many other successful and well known photographers that shoot RAW, such as Jack Reznicki, Eddie Tapp, Kevin Kubota and Seth Resnick and Denis Reggie to name but a few.
It really boils down to personal choice at the end of the day and it’s very much a case of horses for courses. I’ve tried shooting both RAW and JPEG and eventually settled on RAW as my format of choice although I might use JPEG format from time to time if that’s what suited the task at hand. There are a number of reasons I settled on RAW, but the main one was that the post processing was quicker with RAW than it was with JPEG. So while it took more time for the images to be written to the card, it took less time to get a good image from the file afterwards!
Shooting RAW also gives me the ability to adjust white balance after I’ve taken the shot. This is much quicker than getting the correct white balance in the camera which you have to do when shooting JPEG, especially if you’re working in constantly changing light conditions. Add to that the fact that you can modify things like sharpness and exposure so much easier in a RAW file than a JPEG and have the ability to work on 16-bit files and it quickly becomes apparent why I prefer RAW files.
But speed was the main factor for me – it’s so much easier to adjust a batch of Raw files than it is to adjust a batch of Jpeg, why make it hard on yourself?
If you work in ery consistent light and can set up a custom white balance at the beginning of the shoot and are certain that you’re exposure is spot on, then it probably makes sense to shoot JPEG, especially if you’re one of those wedding photographers that shoots thousands of images at a single wedding as a result of which memory capacity becomes an issue that can easily be resolved by shooting Jpeg.
As I said, it’s horses for courses and the only correct format is the one that works best for you, the individual.
Personally I always shoot RAW for a number of reasons (many of which are cited above):
1 – Flexibility – I find it easier and more accurate to adjust white balance post shooting
2 – Common sense – If I shoot Jpeg, I’m throwing data away, never to be seen again. At least with RAW I make that decision, when I want to.
3 – Workflow – I find it easier to adjust a batch of RAW files. I use Aperture for processing, and it’s so much easier than adjusting multiple Jpgs.
4 – Version control – It’s easy to keep track multiple versions of the same RAW file in something like Aperture, with minimal extra hard disk space taken up.Personally I see the only reason NOT so shoot in RAW is if you need a continuous burst and RAW is slowing you down.
As has been said before, it’s personal preference, but I’ve yet to see an argument to convince me to shoot Jpg, other than my last point.
Tim
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
