Shooting RAW vs TIFF images

JH
Posted By
Jim_Hess
May 3, 2004
Views
191
Replies
5
Status
Closed
I have this little Pentax 5 MP digital camera. I have had it now for nearly a year. It doesn’t shoot RAW images, but it does shoot uncompressed tiff files that are nearly 16 MB in size. I finally got around to taking a few pictures using this feature over the weekend. I haven’t printed any of them yet. Of course, I wasn’t able to see any difference on my computer screen, but I was just wondering if any of you experts could tell me what I should expect from the prints from these tiff files. I would also like to know if anyone can tell me if there is a lot of difference between uncompressed tiff images and RAW images. I have gotten a little bit stingy about printing lately, so I just thought I would ask in advance to see if any of you have any experience with using these image file formats.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

BB
Barbara_Brundage
May 3, 2004
if there is a lot of difference between uncompressed tiff images and RAW images.

Well, the biggest difference (aside from the fact that RAW is usually smaller) is that with RAW you can make adjustments before actually opening the file to things like exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. Deke McC. also says that you can upsize RAW in preview a tad (like from a 5 MP image to a 7) without much quality loss, but I’ve never tried that to see.

With my camera I tend to prefer RAW if I’m doing something serious, best quality JPEG if I need to fit a bunch of pictures on the card, and not TIFF. There’s just not that much advantage to TIFF as far as I can see, at least not on the A1.
JH
Jim_Hess
May 3, 2004
Thanks for the input, Barbara. I have been looking for some justification for using the tiff format, but I have had more than satisfactory results from shooting JPEG images. I haven’t been able to detect any of the JPEG compression noise even in my 8×10 prints (that’s the biggest I can print on my printer). Of course I normally shoot in in the best picture mode and always save my edited files as PSD. So far I have been very pleased with my results. Maybe if I get the chance to go to the Tetons this summer, I might shoot a couple of TIF images up there.
BB
Barbara_Brundage
May 3, 2004
Yes, I’ve been very happy with the JPG quality for both my cameras. Actually, depending on the conversion algorithm, RAW can be noisier. At least that’s my experience if I’m lazy and use the ACR converter to avoid having to open images in a separate program. The current PS CS converter is much noisier for .mrw files than the previous version, and that wasn’t great.

To me the biggest advantage of RAW is the ability to get the exposure nailed before you open the image. It’s much easier and faster than trying to do after-the-fact correction on that. Of course, if you always ( or usually) nail the exposure in camera, that wouldn’t be an issue. 8)
DN
DS_Nelson
May 3, 2004
Of course, if you always ( or usually) nail the exposure in camera, that wouldn’t be an issue.

Yeah, like we always accomplish that! <vbg>
BB
brent_bertram
May 3, 2004
My 2 cents worth votes on the side of Best Quality JPG files. To me they are indistinguishable from the TIF’s . I do save all my subsequent edits as TIF files, however. I have 3 Nikon’s and their "fine" mode ( 4×1 JPG ) looks great.

🙂

Brent

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections