RAW vs Tiff

[ann]

Any thoughts on these options.

Please don't get started with raw vs jpeg's ; i am very well aware of the pros and cons .

Years ago with my first digital camera, a d100 i used Tiff all the time as I wasn't aware of the advantages of RAW. Later on I did shot in that mode, and lately with my d700 I have been using both.

Some how earlier today it crossed my mind just what would be the pros and cons of tiff over raw, if any. Getting ready to pull out google, but wondered if any serious workers here have considered this as an option?

Does anyone know, if shooting in tiff mode provides 16bit files?

Just as a point of interest, google bought up this same question in 2010 but not much discussion.

 

[MLeeK]

Tiff files are more than jpegs and less than raw.

 

[table1349]

Learn about RAW, JPEG, and TIFF with the digital photography experts at Photo.net.

 

[Rephargotohp]

Most RAW files are based upon the Tiff file standard with some modifications...so

 

[table1349]

Most RAW files are based upon the Tiff file standard with some modifications...so

Raw files are just that RAW data from the sensor. That is why there is no standard. Each makers RAW file is proprietary to that company. All other file formats come from the RAW file, not the other way around.

 

[Garbz]

RAW:
+ RAW sensor data from camera. It has everything that your camera captured in the most unadulterated way.
+ Allows any possible adjustment to happen in the purest way potentially leading to quality improvements as software algorithms get better later.
+ Highly efficient in storages since it only stores what is needed
- Proprietary
- Completely incompatible between even similar cameras from the same manufacturer.
- Each program needs to support each individual camera model.
- Good luck reading a RAW file in 20 years.
- Earlier camera models didn't support lossless RAW compression leading to big files.
- They take incredibly long to process
- No support for layers or adjustments
- No support for any pixel changes or alterations of any kind.
- Any alterations need to be embedded in a database or supported with a file along side the original.
- You can't use RAW files to store images after editing if you do anything more than a basic edit.

TIFF:
+ Lossless compression
+ 16bit
+ Support for layers, transparency, and many MANY different details which make TIFF almost as useful as a PSD file for saving a work in progress.
+ File can be saved with not other supporting files or information needed.
+ Published standard so you may still read the file in 20 years.
- 16bit (yeah it's a plus, but many cameras are 10-12bit so there's a lot of wasted data in there)
- You can't get a TIFF without a RAW (it's one step removed and thus doesn't preserve the original recording).
- Camera / post processing adjustments are already applied so there's no coming back if you don't like the amount of sharpening your RAW processor did.
- Original settings not adjustable (i.e. whitebalance won't allow you to select "As Shot")
- The TIFF standard is convoluted and psychotic to implement.
- The TIFF standard evolves, so who knows if your file really will be readable in 20 years, i.e. how many programs can open TIFF files compressed using "Deflate" given the compressor has been depreciated?

Most RAW files are based upon the Tiff file standard with some modifications...so

This quote is so incredibly wrong it's almost full circle towards right again. RAW has nothing in common AT ALL with ANY image file format.
But it has something in common with TIFF, and that is that both are the most incredibly convoluted and non-standard "standards" there have ever been. Actually it's probably easier to add support for a RAW format in image editing formats than to completely support every feature of TIFF.

 

[ann]

thanks, but I suppose I didn't express my question very well as basically i know what has been discussed and offered.

Boring day, setting around doing too much thinking when it crossed my mind, I wonder if I should go back to shooting in tiff, less converting, more info than jpeg, less than raw. That sort of thing.

I suppose I will just continue to do what i have been doing, shooting both, using raw for heavy lifting artistic changes, jpeg for quick email, etc.

 

[pgriz]

@ ann: the question you asked is not trivial. On a very short time-line, of COURSE RAW is the way to go. But as Garbz noted, will we be able to access the RAW files in 20 years? I have drawers of old media that is no longer accessible (easily). The software needed to get at it has not been updated to run on the latest operating systems, and the backward compatibility is an issue, as many of the older softwares were written in a rather loose and insecure manner, causing them to be blocked (or severely limited) by the new operating systems. Perhaps, one of our backup approaches has to include processes to periodically dump all our RAW images into a third-party format which we hope will be supported over the longer period... Possible candidates are Adobe's DNG, 16-bit TIFF, Adobe's PSD... Again, if Adobe goes belly-up, who supports their proprietary formats? At least TIFF support seems to be spread over many companies.

The business challenge is that each company (by its nature) is trying to capture more market share by enabling import into their formats, and restrict loss to competitors by making theirs sufficiently proprietary that export causes loss (therefore is less attractive to users). As consumers, we do not pressure the manufacturers enough to ensure that we have a viable path forward. How much data is sitting on 5 1/2" floppies (or 3 1/2" floppies for that matter), permanently inaccessible? Or 800 MB tapes? Or Iomega drives? or mini-DV video tape? I got probably over 100 mini-DV tapes with various family events recorded on them that are potentially inaccessible because my mini-DV reader is busted, and the local repair guys just shrug their shoulders. Yes, it is possible to get mini-DV readers (still), and I need to move on it before the last one is no longer working.

Digital is great. until the access to it is obsolete.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

My opinion is to either use JPEG or RAW, TIFF is just a waste of space. TIFF is only for post-editing (of RAW). No point of shooting TIFF in camera if you have RAW.

 

[ann]

When converting from raw it is tiff and change a lot of jpeg's to tiff, so who knows.

Lots of folks seem to love dng , but that is a different story, different question.

 

[Bossy]

I convert my NEF Raw to DNG Raw, it solves that problem of "going out of style" by being universal. I'm sure that will be an option later on in life as well. But mostly I convert to DNG because I have to, my camera is more up to date than my programs.

Either way you'll have to convert, either from RAW to jpeg or Tiff to jpeg, so I guess I'm confused on why you would want to shoot the lesser file? I don't know, I'm such a "just in case" person, I like having the larger file.

 

[ann]

It is an exercise in thinking, why do the makers give the choice in camera of tiff?

As to why jpeg, shooting both gives one the option of using the jpeg when no enhancements are needed.

There is a reason i shoot raw and use raw, there is a reason i ask about shooting in tiff format , curiosity

 

[analog.universe]

It is an exercise in thinking, why do the makers give the choice in camera of tiff?

As to why jpeg, shooting both gives one the option of using the jpeg when no enhancements are needed.

There is a reason i shoot raw and use raw, there is a reason i ask about shooting in tiff format , curiosity

This strikes me as compatibility thing. Totally just speculating here, but if you shot tiff, you could hand those files to anyone straight out of camera, and they'd be able to read them. I can't imagine why that would be part of my workflow, but for some folks it might be. RAW seems to be the best option for the photog when the next step is post process... but if the file is going to someone else, or some other step, tiff lets you do that in way better quality than jpg.

 

[ann]

That seems logical and hadn't crossed my mind.

 

[KmH]

It is an exercise in thinking, why do the makers give the choice in camera of tiff?

In the commercial photography world, TIFF is almost a standard format photographers provide to clients.

I also wanted to mention some camera makers have adopted Adobe's open source .DNG Raw file format in lieu of a proprietary Raw format.