Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 20D, RAW, JPEG and TIFF

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:48:37 AM

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

I've recently bought a Canon 20D which is great. However, some questions
which hopefully you can help with...

1. Why doesn't it allow you to store RAW for basic zone photographs? It
would be nice to have loss-less images even when they have been lazily
taken - especially is subsequent touch-up in Photoshop is going to be done
(because that will cause further loss won't it?)

2. I read recently that TIFF is possibly the best format for long term
archiving. What's the best workflow for taking 20D images and converting
them to TIFF? (I'm presuming that for the basic zone JPEGs, they might as
well just stay as JPEGs!)

Thanks in advance.
Pete
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:48:38 AM

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

1) I don't know, but after I found Av and M I haven't been back to the
basic zones
since late September and I haven't shot anything other than RAW sine
then also.

2) For the time period I am looking at, I store RAW images and fully
post processed
JPGs. I do use TIFFs for transit between my RAW converter (DPP) and PS,
but I
erase these later. I archive the RAWs as I collect another DVD+RW
number of
images. I also archive DVD+WR JPGs but with a file structure
appropriate for the
occasions being shot.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 4:11:56 AM

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

Peter Howe wrote:
> I've recently bought a Canon 20D which is great. However, some
> questions which hopefully you can help with...
>
> 1. Why doesn't it allow you to store RAW for basic zone photographs? It
> would be nice to have loss-less images even when they have been
> lazily taken - especially is subsequent touch-up in Photoshop is
> going to be done (because that will cause further loss won't it?)

Well RAW is not really loss-less, it is more of a reduced loss. :-)

As for zone, I don't know, unless some of the features may conflict with
RAW. In any case I don't use the auto zone so I can't help. I stick with
the Program choices.


>
> 2. I read recently that TIFF is possibly the best format for long term
> archiving. What's the best workflow for taking 20D images and
> converting them to TIFF? (I'm presuming that for the basic zone
> JPEGs, they might as well just stay as JPEGs!)
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Pete

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Related resources
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 5:42:22 AM

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

In article <Vul0e.4051$d55.3213@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, news@xenzero.com
says...
> I've recently bought a Canon 20D which is great. However, some questions
> which hopefully you can help with...
>
> 1. Why doesn't it allow you to store RAW for basic zone photographs? It
> would be nice to have loss-less images even when they have been lazily
> taken - especially is subsequent touch-up in Photoshop is going to be done
> (because that will cause further loss won't it?)

I may be misunderstanding your question, but if you shoot in "P" mode
you're basically in full-auto BUT you can set resolution to
raw/raw+jpeg.

>
> 2. I read recently that TIFF is possibly the best format for long term
> archiving. What's the best workflow for taking 20D images and converting
> them to TIFF? (I'm presuming that for the basic zone JPEGs, they might as
> well just stay as JPEGs!)

That's true so long as you don't edit and the re-save them as JPEGS.
Whenever you save in that format you sand off some bits...

Jason
--
Reverse the username in my email address.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:33:36 AM

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

May I ask how you know Canon RAW is not a lossless compression?
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:18:29 PM

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

Peter Howe wrote:

> I've recently bought a Canon 20D which is great. However, some questions
> which hopefully you can help with...
>
> 1. Why doesn't it allow you to store RAW for basic zone photographs? It
> would be nice to have loss-less images even when they have been lazily
> taken - especially is subsequent touch-up in Photoshop is going to be done
> (because that will cause further loss won't it?)

When you use the auto modes, you enter into a contract with the
camera. You point and shoot and the camera does everything else.

I guess Canon feels that people who are point-n-shooters, aren't
likely to be interested in taking the time to do extensive post
processing :-)

> 2. I read recently that TIFF is possibly the best format for long term
> archiving. What's the best workflow for taking 20D images and converting
> them to TIFF? (I'm presuming that for the basic zone JPEGs, they might as
> well just stay as JPEGs!)

There isn't much loss in Canon's high quality JPEG.. I doubt you
could see the difference between a JPEG and RAW converted directly
to TIFF without any processing. I know I can't.

The big thing with RAW *is* the ability to post process. Canon RAW
files are 12 bit vs 8 bit for JPEG.. The greater depth allows you to
pull more detail out of underexposed areas and in some cases salvage
highlights from slightly overexposed areas.

And of course, there are no paramaters applied to the RAW file. The
settings are only applied when you actually convert the RAW to a
JPEG or TIFF

This allows you to change things like white balance, sharpness, contrast
etc. after the fact. Something you just can't do with JPEG.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 8:07:49 PM

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

"Peter Howe" <news@xenzero.com> writes:

>1. Why doesn't it allow you to store RAW for basic zone photographs? It
>would be nice to have loss-less images even when they have been lazily
>taken - especially is subsequent touch-up in Photoshop is going to be done
>(because that will cause further loss won't it?)

I don't have a 20D, but on the Canon's I'm familiar with, in P mode you
can set the camera so it shoots identically to Auto in every way. The
difference is that Auto *prevents* you from making choices that you
might not understand if you don't know anything about photography. Auto
is the mode to set before giving the camera to your grandmother.

Thus, Auto prevents you from changing the white balance, which has the
potential of royally messing up your images - auto white balance is
safer for beginners. Similarly, Auto prevents you from shooting RAW,
because that would give you images you can't directly print, or view on
your computer - this would be distressing for a novice.

Basically, if you know what RAW is, Canon figures you know enough to use
P mode. Auto mode is for people who don't understand RAW and thus
probably don't want it.

Dave
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 9:04:21 PM

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

Woggy_tm@yahoo.com wrote:
> May I ask how you know Canon RAW is not a lossless compression?

First, I did not reference anything about compression. I simply wrote
"Well RAW is not really loss-less, it is more of a reduced loss. :-)" No
digital camera I know of creates any form of lossless file. In all cases I
know of, the original data from the sensor is analog. this is processed by
the camera into digital data (the RAW image) It is not something you or I
can do anything about. That is why I wrote it the way I did. Sorry if it
was confusing.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
March 26, 2005 12:18:01 PM

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

Peter,

1) I guess the logic is that the people who want to operate the 20D in the
basic zone modes are more your casual shooter and the most unlikely to be
'fiddling around' in photoshop afterwards. (Personally I wish they'd just
left them off the 20D entirely.)

2) As to 'Best for archiving'...

I shoot RAW + Max JPG (if the shots perfect in camera I can just use the
original JPG without post processing)

For all other shots I convert to 16-bit TIFF using Canon's EOSViewer
Utility.

I do all editing as 16-bit TIFF and only convert back to JPG when happy with
the final edit.

My working Harddrive is backed up every night to a second external HD

I then archive...

a) The original RAW file
b) The final edit TIFF (throwing away all interim steps)
c) The final JPG

....all RAW files to both DVD-RAM and a 3rd 'archive' HD (plus a 'safety'
backup to DVD-R stored offsite)
....final TIFF to DVD-RAM (plus a 'safety' backup to DVD-R stored offsite)
....final JPG to DVD-RAM and the 'archive' HD (plus a 'safety' backup to
DVD-R stored offsite)

Regards

DM


"Peter Howe" <news@xenzero.com> wrote in message
news:Vul0e.4051$d55.3213@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> I've recently bought a Canon 20D which is great. However, some questions
> which hopefully you can help with...
>
> 1. Why doesn't it allow you to store RAW for basic zone photographs? It
> would be nice to have loss-less images even when they have been lazily
> taken - especially is subsequent touch-up in Photoshop is going to be done
> (because that will cause further loss won't it?)
>
> 2. I read recently that TIFF is possibly the best format for long term
> archiving. What's the best workflow for taking 20D images and converting
> them to TIFF? (I'm presuming that for the basic zone JPEGs, they might as
> well just stay as JPEGs!)
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Pete
>
>
March 26, 2005 3:20:58 PM

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

On 24 Mar 2005 06:33:36 -0800, Woggy_tm@yahoo.com wrote:

>May I ask how you know Canon RAW is not a lossless compression?

Oh good lord, do some research. This topic has been beaten to DEATH
on various photography sites and newsgroups.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
March 26, 2005 3:23:27 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:18:29 -0600, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
wrote:

---snip---
>There isn't much loss in Canon's high quality JPEG.. I doubt you
>could see the difference between a JPEG and RAW converted directly
>to TIFF without any processing. I know I can't.
>
>The big thing with RAW *is* the ability to post process. Canon RAW
>files are 12 bit vs 8 bit for JPEG.. The greater depth allows you to
>pull more detail out of underexposed areas and in some cases salvage
>highlights from slightly overexposed areas.

and the really nice thing is as the available software keeps improving
so does the ability to "repair" poor photos. The capability to
recover "blown" highlights in Photoshop CS is AMAZING. Of course that
doesn't help all of the pre-RAW photos I've taken <sigh>.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
March 27, 2005 4:25:48 PM

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

Beaten to death it may be but not all of would agree with your
'conclusion'...

http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

Regards

DM

"Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
news:o e6b41ppk3c04ltthatbhak9u5asvamqsk@4ax.com...
> On 24 Mar 2005 06:33:36 -0800, Woggy_tm@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>May I ask how you know Canon RAW is not a lossless compression?
>
> Oh good lord, do some research. This topic has been beaten to DEATH
> on various photography sites and newsgroups.
>
>
> Drifter
> "I've been here, I've been there..."
March 27, 2005 4:25:49 PM

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

What conclusion? I have posted no opinion one way or the other beyond
the fact that this issue has been debated ad-nausium.



On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:25:48 GMT, "DM"
<dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Beaten to death it may be but not all of would agree with your
>'conclusion'...
>
>http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/
>
>Regards
>
>DM
>
>"Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
>news:o e6b41ppk3c04ltthatbhak9u5asvamqsk@4ax.com...
>> On 24 Mar 2005 06:33:36 -0800, Woggy_tm@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>May I ask how you know Canon RAW is not a lossless compression?
>>
>> Oh good lord, do some research. This topic has been beaten to DEATH
>> on various photography sites and newsgroups.
>>
>>
>> Drifter
>> "I've been here, I've been there..."
>

Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
March 27, 2005 4:28:30 PM

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

And again...

http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing....

Regards

DM

"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gDx1e.6255$Ab.5130@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Beaten to death it may be but not all of would agree with your
> 'conclusion'...
>
> http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
> news:o e6b41ppk3c04ltthatbhak9u5asvamqsk@4ax.com...
>> On 24 Mar 2005 06:33:36 -0800, Woggy_tm@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>May I ask how you know Canon RAW is not a lossless compression?
>>
>> Oh good lord, do some research. This topic has been beaten to DEATH
>> on various photography sites and newsgroups.
>>
>>
>> Drifter
>> "I've been here, I've been there..."
>
>
!