Tiff or Raw?
Westernart1
Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
Should I shoot in tiff or in raw format? I have a D300 and a D2H.
0
Comments
http://nikonic1.smugmug.com/
Not allowed to enter Henry's alone anymore...
Kyle Derkachenko Photography
shoot in RAW edit in PS
save as TIFF keeps all data in file.
is it cheaper if I buy both raw and tiff, and do you combine shipping,
sorry I just had to do that, its snowing and my D90 is not Waterproof.
Do not worry about placing it in for sale, Erik will see and move.
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
Jpeg not Raw.
If you have lightroom you can do everything to the jpeg you can do to the raw. Only difference is the ability to save hightlights on more blown out pictures in raw than you can in jpeg. Jpegs you can save the blown outs a little but not much.
Unless you are a pro who blows out a lot of shots like a wedding photographer who needs to preserve detail in a white dress, there is no reason to shoot Raw or Tiff.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Thanks for everyones help and I do have lightroom and love it. I was thinking that it might help the 4mg D2H.
Shoot raw and process in lightroom............lightroom is a fantastic digital asset management tool also................
If the mis-nomer of: if you get it right in camera then just shoot jpg were actually 100% correct.....then all of the PROs shooting film would have / would be shooting nothing but Polaroids..........................
Good info. Thanks This would be a good time for a good old camera test. Raw vs .jpg
Um, I don't quite understand your last sentence…
I thought that back in the film days, the reason that pros used Polaroid™ was to check exposure/lighting-balance/composition etc, much in the same way as folk now "chimp" and use histograms; so, if they were getting it right in the camera, then surely they wouldn't have needed to use Polaroid™…
…er, I think I need more coffee!!
- Wil
I think he meant that the statement that the statement "if you get it right in camera you can shoot jpg" were true, it would be the same as if film shooters no longer needed a negative as long as they got it right in the camera. If they get it right in camera then all they need is the developed print, right? aka...Polaroid...
Correct me if I got this wrong!
The pros would have all shot Polaroids if their downstream clients could work with them. But Polaroids did not have the color, sharpness, resolution that were needed for high-end production. That's the only reason pros didn't shoot Polaroids for final shots (other than maybe cost). Their clients needed precise, high-resolution transparency film that would hold up to magazine and ad production, manipulation as part of graphic design, and extreme enlargement.
Besides, film photographers still had to get it right in camera, you did not want to screw up the film. It was too costly to fix big mistakes later...it was like fixing a JPEG.
I think Raw is better, but I also think it's true that if you don't need to make any adjustments after the shoot, ever, and that includes quality reductions incurred from combining the image with others in designs or advanced processing like HDR, then hey, why not shoot JPEG.
The problem with the "get it right in camera" approach is that only certain photographers can do that. The rest have to deal with changing outdoor lighting conditions and other factors that are part of the nature of their work and cannot be easily locked down in the camera and must be addressed in post. Making raw the better choice for them.