RAW v JPG ?

[Guest CJS2]

No but it would be nice to cruise at 85. I would not use RAW for EVERY shot, the files are enormous. There is a half-way house. Most decent cameras support TIFF format. This is uncompressed so big files, but can be edited as easily as JPEG.

 

TIFF, ??? I think that has or is being droped these days, is it not? or have I got my lines crossed?? It certainly not on my D70s. Dont think it is any way? just checked spec., only RAW and JPEG.

 

[corydoras]

TIFF, ??? I think that has or is being droped these days, is it not? or have I got my lines crossed?? It certainly not on my D70s. Dont think it is any way? just checked spec., only RAW and JPEG.

 

Mine is TIFF & JPEG. No way is TIFF 'on the way out'. TIFF is a very important file format for commercial photo scanning and for document management systems. The TIFF format is either uncompressed or uses a 'loss less' compression algorithm so you do not get as many artifacts in a TIFF file. JPEG on the other hand is a 'lossy' format. It is compressed first by using an algorithm to 'throw away' bits of the image that the algoritm thinks the human eye can't detect, the remaining data is packed with a Lempel Ziv type algorithm. Every time you re-save a JPEG file and overwrite the original you throw away a bit more detail. If you want your images to look their very best you should shoot in raw or tiff and save as a JPEG file the file for viewing. I think of my TIFF files as my 'digital negatives' and the final JPEG as my 'digital print'. I NEVER overwrite the files that come off my camera. They go straight onto DVD. That way if I muck something up I can always get the file as it came from the camera.

 

I know that RAW files are a lot to work with, but hey folks learning is fun and there are lots of sites on the web with tips, tutorials to help you on your way.

[Steve Randles]

I think of my TIFF files as my 'digital negatives

 

There is now an adobe file format called DNG = Digital negative, directly associated with RAW files if I remember correctly. Again, its anothe route for me thats on the back burner for now

 

 

I know that RAW files are a lot to work with, but hey folks learning is fun and there are lots of sites on the web with tips, tutorials to help you on your way.

 

Thats just it, they are not difficult to work with at all. Your just dealing with bigger files.

 

Steve...

[Eatlard]

I personally started in JPEG but as soon as I saw what RAW could do I havent looked back - I shoot every shot in RAW. True that processing wise it does take longer and may not be comercially viable but for me just shooting mainly for fun, I find it excellent.

 

I pop all my RAW shots on to PC (5mb each) then slideshow them through Rawshooter, a free programme which is excellent and choose the ones I like. It allows you to make corrections to any shot that you could have done with the camera (other than focusing) - exposure values, white balance, colours etc and you can run it as a batch if you require. Still no substitute for taking a great shot in the first place but as I've said before, it's an option to use if you wish.

 

Files are then converted to TIFFs which can be quite large - around 35meg for my 6.1 MP shots but TIFFs from the way I understand it are pure - no compression at all, which JPEG does do. Once I'm really happy with it I save it down to the size required and post it up.

 

I took me a short while to get to grips with it but overalll if you are happy with editing JPEGs, there's little difference. Best way is to try it on something that you can experiment on and just play around with the software and see how you get on. If you don't like it..fair enough.

 

PS - working in TIFFs is very heavy on the PC - I wouldn't attempt it without a reasonable spec machine ( say 2Ghz processor with 1 GB ram and a reasonable graphics card) otherwise it may well be a lesson in frustration.

 

Have fun!

[Eatlard]

90% of the time I shoot in JPEG, but the other 10% I shoot RAW. I'm convinced in the fact that RAW delivers more flexibility and will continue to grow in popularity. A good example of this would be the latest HDR photography, which does not work especially well with bracketed shots but with the ability to change the exposure in RAW software of any shot then multiple images for HDR use can be derived from one shot.

 

Steve...

 

Not to derail the thread at all Steve but HDR works best IMO with bracketed shots, the issue is that it is alot harder to get 3 or more individual exposures that don't just look blurred (unless that what you want) when you combine them due to very slight movement of your subject. Inside shots (churches etc) are ideal for true bracketing and static shots like buildings, scenery, parked cars, castles etc that have alot going on cloud or lightwise in the sky really bring out the best. Some subjects you just cant hope for that - try getting 3 bracketed shots of your kids or pets sitting still

[Guest CJS2]

OK, TIFF is not dead? So why have Nikon deleted it from their camera menu. My Original D100 had JPEG, TIFF or RAW as a shooting format, the current cameras do not offer TIFF? Are Nikon out of step, (Canons 20D/30D do not have it either) or is it a format to convert RAW to TIFF in the computer?

 

Very confused, this has shades of the 50's battle with LP's 10", 12", EP's or 45's ???? Then again with Video Betamax v VHS. There was 8 track v cassette, the current CD format I believe had more than one contender on the internal rang-lings, before release.

 

Time and file size is the enemy of RAW and TIFF it would seem. Set of against potential quality? However do we all want to be driving a Ferrari? they are so finicky!!!

 

Eatlard, where do we get this 'RAWshooter' free-be from, and is it idiot proof? or do we need a degree in '3rd dimension photgrahic iso-piles' (piles! nasty) to understand it?

 

[Eatlard]

CJS2 -

 

Try here. - Rawshooter for free

 

It's pretty self explanatory in my opinion. When you have a raw shot you want to convert then use the "batch convert" - you will need to tell it where to put the new file. Also I unticked the "automatically open with" option, otherwise it immediately opens your new file up.

 

I can't remember the exact layout as I'm at work but if you get really stuck, i'll try and post some screenies.

 

 

Have fun!

[corydoras]

Files are then converted to TIFFs which can be quite large - around 35meg for my 6.1 MP shots but TIFFs from the way I understand it are pure - no compression at all, which JPEG does do. Once I'm really happy with it I save it down to the size required and post it up.

I think maybe some have not cottoned on to the difference between lossy and losless compression.

 

TIFF can be compressed or uncompressed, however the compression algorithm used to compress a TIFF file is 'lossless'. That is to say that when un-compressed the data is exactly the same as the uncompressed version would be. When you create a .zip file with winzip or similar you are using a lossless compression algorithm.

 

JPEG, MP3 and MPG are all examples of 'lossy' compression techniques. When an image is being compressed to make a JPEG file the algorithm first 'loses' or 'throws' away parts of the image that the human eye can't see then the remaining data is compressed with lossless algorithm.

 

In MP3 creation information the human ear (supposedly) cannot hear is thrown away.

 

MPEG is a bit more complex, so I will just outline what goes on in the cration of an MPEG movie. The principle is that only about 5-6 frames from 25 are the full image. The 'in between' images only contain information about the parts of the scene that have changed. That is why you sometimes see 'artifacts' when watching fast action sports on digital tv.

[Eatlard]

Corydoras,

 

No i did get it, but my explanation was way off

 

Thanks for clearing it up.

[corydoras]

OK, TIFF is not dead? So why have Nikon deleted it from their camera menu. My Original D100 had JPEG, TIFF or RAW as a shooting format, the current cameras do not offer TIFF? Are Nikon out of step, (Canons 20D/30D do not have it either) or is it a format to convert RAW to TIFF in the computer?

You would have to ask Nikon. I suspect that they would say that if you have RAW then you don't need TIFF too.

Very confused, this has shades of the 50's battle with LP's 10", 12", EP's or 45's ???? Then again with Video Betamax v VHS. There was 8 track v cassette, the current CD format I believe had more than one contender on the internal rang-lings, before release.

No its nothing like that. There are dozens of different graphics formats; PNG, GIF, TGA, I could go on all day. They all have different pros and cons (for example JPEG does not support transparency, GIF does but GIF only supports 256 8 bit colours).

Time and file size is the enemy of RAW and TIFF it would seem. Set of against potential quality? However do we all want to be driving a Ferrari? they are so finicky!!!

Both RAW and TIFF are going to be around for some time to come. TIFF was invented about 18 years ago by a company by the name of Aldus (long ago swallowed up by Adobe)

 

Is anyone still confused between lossy and lossless compression?

 

Corydoras,

 

No i did get it, but my explanation was way off

 

Thanks for clearing it up.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago

Edited August 15, 2006 by corydoras