RAW vs Tiff

Tom Potter

Hey Folks,

Can someone explain Tiff vs RAW? I've heard Tiff is more detailed than RAW. True???

If I want to shoot professionally, and want the very best quality, should I shoot Tiff or RAW?

Also, regarding both these formats, must you ALWAYS post-process, or if the exposure is "perfect",
might you not necessarily need to post process?

Thx a lot for your help!

Tom

ziggy53

Tom Potter wrote:

Hey Folks,

Can someone explain Tiff vs RAW? I've heard Tiff is more detailed than RAW. True???

If I want to shoot professionally, and want the very best quality, should I shoot Tiff or RAW?

Also, regarding both these formats, must you ALWAYS post-process, or if the exposure is "perfect",
might you not necessarily need to post process?

Thx a lot for your help!

Tom

Tom,

Nothing is more detailed than RAW because RAW is simply what your camera's imager recorded. TIF is processed by the camera, similar to JPG, but a 16 bit TIF does contain more tonality than JPG. If you use in-camera sharpening, the resulting TIF can "look" like it has more detail than a straight RAW file, but if you process the RAW with the same amount of sharpening, the RAW will have the same general appearance.

If you have a choice and you have the time, RAW is always preferable.

If you are shooting in studio conditions and have absolute control over both lighting and exposure, I suppose there are times when a proper TIF can be created, but I would not count on having those ideal situations too often, even in a studio.

In-camera processing will probably never achieve what you can do with a full blown computer and RAW processor.

Tom Potter

ziggy53 wrote:

Tom,

Nothing is more detailed than RAW because RAW is simply what your camera's imager recorded. TIF is processed by the camera, similar to JPG, but a 16 bit TIF does contain more tonality than JPG. If you use in-camera sharpening, the resulting TIF can "look" like it has more detail than a straight RAW file, but if you process the RAW with the same amount of sharpening, the RAW will have the same general appearance.

If you have a choice and you have the time, RAW is always preferable.

If you are shooting in studio conditions and have absolute control over both lighting and exposure, I suppose there are times when a proper TIF can be created, but I would not count on having those ideal situations too often, even in a studio.

In-camera processing will probably never achieve what you can do with a full blown computer and RAW processor.

Cool, Ziggy! Thanx for keeping it straight & clear. I have the Nikon D300, which has Tiff as a choice. I also have a DVD set from Elite Video which I perhaps took incorrectly, thinking it was suggested Tiff has more detail than RAW. So, that's what sparked my question.

Appreciate your help! :O)

Tom

pathfinder

Some cameras, typically some Point and Shoots, do not record RAW data, and only give you a choice of tiff versus jpgs of various quality levels.

But if your camera can record RAW files, that will be the best format to record your image. From there you can create 8 or 16 bit tiffs or jpgs in various color spaces.

Event photographers who shoot hundreds of images that are of somewhat time limited interest - some sport shooters, some wedding shooters, prefer jpgs because they can avoid time spent post processing. And properly shot jpgs can be VERY good if exposure, white balance, and camera processing settings are set up as desired.

But folks who are interested in very large prints at the very highest quality, shoot with mirror lockup and on a firm tripod, routinely shoot RAW and process the images themselves, rather than letting the little battery powered computer in their camera do it. It is not that they want to sit before their computer, but that this is the path to the very finest image quality.

Marc Muench shoots RAW. Andy Williams shoots RAW. Michael Reichman shoots RAW. Alan Briot shoots RAW. Jeff Schewe shoots RAW. I think I see a pattern here:D

Icebear

I realize that at my stage in life I'm very fortunate. $300 for Lightroom wasn't a big deal to me. That being said, I can't recall a better $300 I've ever spent on photography. Since I installed Lightroom, I haven't seen a need to EVER shoot a jpeg file again. I've wasted way too much time (according to SWMBO) on this forum in the last couple days (see this thread in particular) so I won't go into all the reasons, but a program like Lightroom IM(not so)HO flat-ass eliminates any reason to shoot in any format but raw. Look it up. I'm not in on this discussion. just a figment of your imagination.