converting RAW to TIFF instead of JPEG?

[krusty]

I've read (in a few different places) that there are advantages to converting RAW files to 16bit TIFF files instead of to JPEG. Can anyone tell me what those advantages are? I've tried it, and with the exception of colors being somewhat off in the TIFF images, I see no discernable difference than if I was to convert to JPEG.

Any insight is appreciated.

[dcclark]

Honestly, I don't think it's worth it.

The advantage of TIFF files is that they are (effectively) uncompressed, whereas jpegs are compressed. That's why TIFF files are HUGE and jpegs aren't nearly as large. So, you will have slightly better image quality -- but a jpeg at 90% quality has virtually no quality loss anyhow. I always use jpegs, and have never noticed any problems, even up close and personal.

So overall -- if you're not seeing a difference, I wouldn't worry about it. Focus on making good photos, and the format won't matter nearly as much.

[mipo]

Read somewhere that today the 16 bit thing is only usefull for editing like in Photoshop.
Or for 16 bit printing, but at this time only a few printer drivers written for 16bits & on Mac only.

It all depends on the final usage of the pictures.

[tjphoto]

You cannot print TIFF at the lab were I print,But if you save your files to put online as Tiff Less main stream people can download and use your Images because they are unsure what to do with them.Advantage.

[jprime84]

You could compare TIFF versus JPG to CD audio versus mp3.

Mp3s are compressed, and the CD audio is not. If you make the mp3 at a reasonable bitrate (save the jpeg as high quality) it is almost indistinguishable from the CD audio(the TIFF).

[BryanC]

Originally Posted by jprime84

You could compare TIFF versus JPG to CD audio versus mp3.

Mp3s are compressed, and the CD audio is not. If you make the mp3 at a reasonable bitrate (save the jpeg as high quality) it is almost indistinguishable from the CD audio(the TIFF).

TIFF is a lossless file...JPG is a lossy file. Using your music analogy:

Altering and saving a TIFF file is like recording a CD from a CD. No matter how many times you do it.

Altering and saving a JPG is like recording a cassette tape from a CD. And the next time you alter and/or save, it's from the cassette version. And the next time, it's from that cassette, and so on, and so on...a little more quality loss each time.

It's a sort of extreme example, and not really too noticeable at first, but the more a JPG is altered and/or saved, the more loss of quality there is. For that reason alone is why I archive my images in a lossless format, usually in original raw file.

[digirebelva]

Originally Posted by BryanC

TIFF is a lossless file...JPG is a lossy file. Using your music analogy:

Altering and saving a TIFF file is like recording a CD from a CD. No matter how many times you do it.

Altering and saving a JPG is like recording a cassette tape from a CD. And the next time you alter and/or save, it's from the cassette version. And the next time, it's from that cassette, and so on, and so on...a little more quality loss each time.

It's a sort of extreme example, and not really too noticeable at first, but the more a JPG is altered and/or saved, the more loss of quality there is. For that reason alone is why I archive my images in a lossless format, usually in original raw file.

The jpeg has to actually be saved after altering to degrade the quality..
Also jpegs wont allow you to save layers from photoshop, elements, gimp etc, tiff will..
If you are never going to touch the file again to make changes then saving it in jpeg will do you..

[jprime84]

Originally Posted by BryanC

TIFF is a lossless file...JPG is a lossy file. Using your music analogy:

Altering and saving a TIFF file is like recording a CD from a CD. No matter how many times you do it.

Altering and saving a JPG is like recording a cassette tape from a CD. And the next time you alter and/or save, it's from the cassette version. And the next time, it's from that cassette, and so on, and so on...a little more quality loss each time.

It's a sort of extreme example, and not really too noticeable at first, but the more a JPG is altered and/or saved, the more loss of quality there is. For that reason alone is why I archive my images in a lossless format, usually in original raw file.

This is just a more extreme version of what I said. MP3 music files are also lossy files. Casette is beyond lossless, its not even digital anymore.

I do agree with saving your RAW files to an archive, and using 1st generation JPGs from those files

[inkista]

TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), unlike RAW or Photoshop .psd files, is an open standard file format (in fact, most RAW formats are based on the TIFF standard with EXIF and other proprietary extras added). The problem with using TIFF as a standard for RAW is that metadata isn't a required part of the standard, it's optional (which is why Adobe keeps trying to get DNG off the ground as an open standard). But while that's the disadvantage of TIFF being an older file format, the advantage is that you can pretty much open and manipulate it inside almost any graphics software, and you're mostly future-proofed against losing access to your images via proprietary software or operating systems disappearing or becoming non-backwards compatible (think Word); or if you decide to swap operating systems.

Also, it's uncompressed.

[BryanC]

Originally Posted by jprime84

This is just a more extreme version of what I said. MP3 music files are also lossy files. Casette is beyond lossless, its not even digital anymore.

I do agree with saving your RAW files to an archive, and using 1st generation JPGs from those files

I was kind of just taking your version and expanding it a little for the OP. I have never saved, re-saved and re-saved mp3's, so I wasn't aware of the degradation they had. Being in my early 40's however , I'm familiar with cassettes and the degradation of re-recording them. It was just an analogy, not to imply that JPG's turned analog.

Originally Posted by inkista

TIFF (Tagged Image File Format), unlike RAW or Photoshop .psd files, is an open standard file format (in fact, most RAW formats are based on the TIFF standard with EXIF and other proprietary extras added). The problem with using TIFF as a standard for RAW is that metadata isn't a required part of the standard, it's optional (which is why Adobe keeps trying to get DNG off the ground as an open standard). But while that's the disadvantage of TIFF being an older file format, the advantage is that you can pretty much open and manipulate it inside almost any graphics software, and you're mostly future-proofed against losing access to your images via proprietary software or operating systems disappearing or becoming non-backwards compatible (think Word); or if you decide to swap operating systems.

Also, it's uncompressed.

It's been a thought I have been having, converting my archived images from the proprietary "raw" to TIFF for the reasons you mention. A 'just to be safe" kind of thing. It's hard to imagine things not becoming more standardized in the future in regards to in camera 'raw type' files. You know, like 35mm film was.