Keeping the Original size of Raw files

[Rose]

so if i shoot Raw on the camera, can i also keep one folder with raw files, and then instead of converting to tiff, convert to psd (photoshop file) once edited in photoshop?

or is it better to save as tiff? whats the difference?:meh:

 

[Polygon]

Photoshop .psd-files contain more information. Of course if you just load the RAW and save as .psd their isn't much difference regarding of size. But as soon as you start postprocessing and perhaps adding layers, masks and whatever else then the .psd-file will store all this stuff which is good if you want to continue editing later. The tiff-file in turn will only store the final result so it's kinda a space-saver if you are sure that you don't want to tweak the editing done to the image anymore.

BTW:
Has anyone considered using PNG? It's lossless compression, but has it any disadvantages over tiff I'm overlooking?

P.S.: It's not always necessary to shoot RAW, think of your poor HDD ;-).

 

[ShutteredEye]

P.S.: It's not always necessary to shoot RAW, think of your poor HDD ;-).

I ALWAYS shoot RAW. You never know when you're going to snap that award winning photo that will make you thousands. And wouldn't it suck if all you had was a jpeg that no publication would want to print from?

 

[Digital Matt]

FYI, Tiffs ARE compressed. The difference between them and a jpg is that they use lossless compression, which does not degrade the picture. They are still compressed, and that's why I recommend using them instead of psds, because they can also save layers, yet the file sizes are smaller.

 

[Polygon]

Sorry, I really cannot see THAT big difference between RAW and JPEG quality wise (at least not such a big one that it would hinder anyone from printing the image), at least on my camera. The real advantage of RAW for me is the possibility to finetune white balance and exposure. On the other hand about 160 JPEG images fit on my memory card opposed to about 60 RAW ones, let alone the memory usage.

What I wanted to say is: Not every party shot needs to be RAW, at least not for me.

 

[SR1]

same for me...i am shooting in RAW when i really want to make more out of the photo later....when it's "just" a birthday or christmas or.....i think JPEG is quite ok....

Another question:
Do all of you print your photos on your own?
When you say you store your pics in TIFF cause it looks better on your prints...
Isn't right, that the photoshops want JPEG files so they can print your pics more easily? Can I also give a CD with TIFF-photos to my photoshop?

 

[Digital Matt]

The truth is, you can print from a max quality jpg, and get a great print. The amount of file degridation is almost imperceptible to the naked eye. Any print shop should be able to print from tiff though. The best thing you can do is ask them first.

 

[markc]

Thankfully I print myself, so I don't have to worry about someone else's requirements. Though I do have to worry about crap like clogged print heads. (#%$@ prnter...) And sure, if you are just doing snapshots that you don't care much about, it doesn't matter what you do them in. I personally hate taking them, as it pulls me out of the "action". I tend to have one mode when shooting (observer), and it's hard to take part in the party when I have a camera in my hand. I let others get those shots. So when I shoot, it's going to be something I want to work with, so I only shoot RAW, but each their own. JPG is perfect for snapshots.

I think those of us who have been talking about RAW mean when you care about what you are printing. After a while, the artifacts and such tend to jump out at you. It's true that a 1% compressed JPG will be very, very close, but for those of us who don't want to introduce any flaws we don't have to, RAW is the way to go. You never know when you want to make a big enlargement.

 

[ShutteredEye]

What's the deal with these RAW vs jpeg threads anyway? They've been popping up on all the forums I frequent lately.

To me it's simple: even if you don't understand completely why, or can't quite tell the difference right now, all the pros shoot RAW. There has to be a reason why they do it, because big CF cards are expensive and they wouldn't buy them if they didn't have to since they are in this to make a profit. In my efforts to improve, I find myself emulating the pros as much as possible--learn from the best, you know? And while I didn't really see the benefit at first either, now I wouldn't shoot any other way. Why wouldn't you want to start with the highest possible resolution file? It can only be a good thing. IMO.