Difference between TIFF and RAW

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:41:43 +0100, -=Rob
<""r.weekhout\"@@tiscali.nl"> wrote:

>Can someone explain to me what exactly is the difference between those
>two formats?
>And in which case do I use what ?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-=Rob.

TIFF is a (old) standard and can be read by many applications.

RAW is a generic term meaning whatever type of format the camera
manufacturer chooses to store uncompressed pictures. These are
proprietary within the make (and sometimes differ between models too).

Both are (usually) losslessly compressed or not compressed at all.

Using RAW files usually means you have more power and
shoot-information when importing the file than TIFF gives. For
example, white balance, de-vignetting, exposure modification etc.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"-=Rob" <""r.weekhout\"@@tiscali.nl"> wrote in message
news:41dc34e0$0$44074$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
> Can someone explain to me what exactly is the difference between those two
> formats?
> And in which case do I use what ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -=Rob.

The main important difference is file size. Tiffs (from equivalent camera in
megs and resolution) are huge in comparison to those that offer Canon RAW
and Nikon NEF. 8-bit Tiff is of course smaller than 16-bit Tiff, but both
are larger than RAW (both the older 8-bit and modern 16-bit Raw capture).
Mind you if you image editor does not support Raw conversion for your camera
model than you will have to convert to the larger TIFF format, but at least
shooting in RAW saves space on your camera's storage card.

Linda

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-=Rob wrote:

> Can someone explain to me what exactly is the difference between those
> two formats?
> And in which case do I use what ?

Just to add to the other replies....

RAW isn't really an image format.. It's the raw digitized
output of the camera sensor.

*All* digital cameras sensors produce RAW data. This data
is passed through firmware within the camera. The firmware
applies all the user chosen camera settings (white balance etc),
and processes it into a real image format. (Usually JPEG and
sometimes TIFF).

If you bypass all internal camera processing and write the
raw sensor data directly to the camera's memory card, then you
have a RAW file.

This data still must be processed, but it can be done later on
in the user's computer rather than inside the camera at the time of
shooting.

To process a RAW file, you need software that will emulate
the camera's internal firmware. This will allow you to convert
the RAW data to an image format such as JPEG or TIFF in
exactly the same manner as the camera firmware would have done
had you selected JPEG or TIFF instead of RAW.

RAW files have no white balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation etc.
Instead of the camera applying these settings, the parameters are all
applied after the fact by the user on his/her home computer.

RAW processing software usually has more features than the camera's
firmware and offers a bit more control and versatility.

Of course, RAW files aren't just the raw data from the sensor.
RAW files can and do contain other data like the camera settings,
embedded JPEG images... What's added depends on the camera
manufacturer.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-=Rob <""r.weekhout\"@@tiscali.nl"> wrote in news:41dc34e0$0$44074
$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:

> And in which case do I use what ?
>

I agree with the two previous posts.

The only reason I could see to shoot TIFF is if I needed the highest
possible quality, and I needed to be able to produce a print from (say)
Walmart, without processing.

I can (from experience) take a tiff from the camera and produce an 8x10
by sticking the flash card into a Walmart kiosk. I cannot produce any
print from RAW without using the software on my computer.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:25:53 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>-=Rob <""r.weekhout\"@@tiscali.nl"> wrote in news:41dc34e0$0$44074
>$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
>
>> And in which case do I use what ?
>>
>
>I agree with the two previous posts.
>
>The only reason I could see to shoot TIFF is if I needed the highest
>possible quality, and I needed to be able to produce a print from (say)
>Walmart, without processing.
>
>I can (from experience) take a tiff from the camera and produce an 8x10
>by sticking the flash card into a Walmart kiosk. I cannot produce any
>print from RAW without using the software on my computer.
>
>Bob

Well Bob, I guess you are a better photographer than me. ;-)

All my printable photos gain something from a few minutes in Photoshop
even if it's just a re-crop, minor level changes and an unsharp mask.
I keep a small 512Mb CF card just for saving the processed RAWs back
onto for subsequent printing. It's at that point I'll get Photoshop to
save the images as TIFFs instead (It won't actually save NEF's even if
I wanted it to).

Well, that was my plan anyway. Since doing it only 3 times I've now
switched to using online services for printing, mainly because they
use better paper (I am an mpix.com fan), the staff don't stare at you
whilst you are waiting for the prints and you won't catch any diseases
off the old people that haunt those joints.

Either way, Photoshop is always in the loop, especially for anything
that's going to be printed.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t7kot0hektoh5r4luka48qjnk58rbohrco@4ax.com:

> Well Bob, I guess you are a better photographer than me. ;-)

Could be, but I wouldn't bet on it ;-)

> All my printable photos gain something from a few minutes in Photoshop
> even if it's just a re-crop, minor level changes and an unsharp mask.

Sometimes deadlines take priority over perfection.

Here's an example that could come up in my line of work: Client is located
4 hours from office. Subject is located three hours from office, on way to
client. Meeting with client requires good quality photographs of subject.

My most likely course of action would be to shoot the subject on the way to
the client, making a one hour stop for lunch to get the 8x10s processed.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> -=Rob wrote:
>
>
>>Can someone explain to me what exactly is the difference between those
>>two formats?
>>And in which case do I use what ?
>
>
> Just to add to the other replies....
>
> RAW isn't really an image format.. It's the raw digitized
> output of the camera sensor.
>
> *All* digital cameras sensors produce RAW data. This data
> is passed through firmware within the camera. The firmware
> applies all the user chosen camera settings (white balance etc),
> and processes it into a real image format. (Usually JPEG and
> sometimes TIFF).
>
> If you bypass all internal camera processing and write the
> raw sensor data directly to the camera's memory card, then you
> have a RAW file.
>
> This data still must be processed, but it can be done later on
> in the user's computer rather than inside the camera at the time of
> shooting.
>
> To process a RAW file, you need software that will emulate
> the camera's internal firmware. This will allow you to convert
> the RAW data to an image format such as JPEG or TIFF in
> exactly the same manner as the camera firmware would have done
> had you selected JPEG or TIFF instead of RAW.
>
> RAW files have no white balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation etc.
> Instead of the camera applying these settings, the parameters are all
> applied after the fact by the user on his/her home computer.
>
> RAW processing software usually has more features than the camera's
> firmware and offers a bit more control and versatility.
>
> Of course, RAW files aren't just the raw data from the sensor.
> RAW files can and do contain other data like the camera settings,
> embedded JPEG images... What's added depends on the camera
> manufacturer.


Very good, clear, succinct explanation.
Thanks. It solidified some of my notions about RAW images.
Bob Williams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:41:43 +0100, -=Rob
<""r.weekhout\"@@tiscali.nl"> wrote:

>Can someone explain to me what exactly is the difference between those
>two formats?
>And in which case do I use what ?

Is there a FAQ for this group? I reckon this question should be on
it (I know that because I didn't know the answer to it myself till
last week!)

http://luminous-landscape.com/ has lots of good tutorials, by the way.
--

Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Henry Law wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:41:43 +0100, -=Rob
> <""r.weekhout\"@@tiscali.nl"> wrote:
>
>
>>Can someone explain to me what exactly is the difference between those
>>two formats?
>>And in which case do I use what ?
>
>
> Is there a FAQ for this group? I reckon this question should be on
> it (I know that because I didn't know the answer to it myself till
> last week!)
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/ has lots of good tutorials, by the way.

Hi...

If I may, I'll throw in one heads-up that might be
helpful as you begin your studies... one that bit me
bad during my initiation  

There are TWO raw's. The first is an old format,
that saved with the file extension .raw . So if you're
software offers to save as or open .raw files, that
ain't it !

The current stuff; that being discussed here refers
to an "unprocessed" file. As in raw = uncooked  

The file extensions for these are proprietary and
different for each camera maker - like Nikon's .nef

Hope this helps a bit.

Ken

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <32gDd.722704$nl.584481@pd7tw3no>,
Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote:

>There are TWO raw's. The first is an old format,
>that saved with the file extension .raw . So if you're
>software offers to save as or open .raw files, that
>ain't it !

Actually, that *IS* a way to view RAW data; I do it all the time.

Use the adobe DNG converter to make an un-demosaiced, uncompressed DNG
from the camera's native RAW format, find out what the real RAW image
dimensions are (usually 8 to 20 pixels wider and taller than the
standard full-res image from the camera), and "open as" .raw in
Photoshop. Photoshop really isn't 16-bit, though, so it will be
posterized to one bit less than the native format.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <qnert01nca1fomc6to53dfgva58d0cn4md@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm wrote:

>Actually, that *IS* a way to view RAW data; I do it all the time.
>
>Use the adobe DNG converter to make an un-demosaiced, uncompressed DNG
>from the camera's native RAW format, find out what the real RAW image
>dimensions are (usually 8 to 20 pixels wider and taller than the
>standard full-res image from the camera), and "open as" .raw in
>Photoshop. Photoshop really isn't 16-bit, though, so it will be
>posterized to one bit less than the native format.

I wrote a program for myself that strips the data out and multiplies it
by 16, so I don't have to lose to the posterization, and don't need to
do "levels" multiple times to see the "image".

I also have one that does the above, plus it puts the pixels in 3 color
planes, according to their filtering.

All are loaded into PS with "open as .RAW".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><