Difference between .TIFF and .RAW

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

08/30/2004 09:48:11 AM · #8

Originally posted by coolhar:

The short and sweet way to understand it is to think of a RAW file as a TIFF file that has been zipped.

I disagree. A RAW file has more flexibility than a TIFF file, zipped or not.

cghubbell

Nikon D300

08/30/2004 10:06:00 AM · #9

Think of a RAW file as a negative, and a TIFF or JPEG as a print with TIFF being the higher quality (and MUCH larger sized) format.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

08/30/2004 11:08:26 AM · #10

Originally posted by dr rick:

Originally posted by coolhar:
The short and sweet way to understand it is to think of a RAW file as a TIFF file that has been zipped.

I disagree. A RAW file has more flexibility than a TIFF file, zipped or not.

I was thinking of a TIFF that comes out of a camera, not a file that has been saved from something else, usually after some manipulation. I may be wrong but can't a TIFF file be un-manipulated data just as a RAW file is?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/30/2004 11:15:18 AM · #11

Originally posted by coolhar:

No, I don't think so. It has usually had WB and sharpening applied at least. The only significant difference between TIFFs and JPEGs from the camera is whether or not compression has been applied (JPEG only).

Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art

08/30/2004 11:35:15 AM · #12

Originally posted by coolhar:

This can be true in some cases. Unlike JPEG - which is an end image format, TIFF is defined like a bag - you can put a whole jumble of stuff in to a TIFF file, 8 bit, 16 bit, compressed, uncompressed, various formats etc (Tagged Image File Format is just a catchall term for various image descriptions that are stored with a tif extension).

Not all TIFF camera images are 'final' versions - and this is the distinction being alluded to in the original question. It very much depends on which particular type of TIFF you want to talk about.

RAW files is the data that cames off the sensor. This can also be stored in a TIFF file in some cameras. Then typically the camera does some processing, applying white balance, contrast adjustments, sharpening and colour saturation adjustments. This final result can be saved as a processed (uncompressed or losslessly compressed) TIFF or lossyly compressed to be a JPEG file.

You can't unroll the changes in the final TIFF or JPEG versions. You can apply any changes you like to the RAW or unprocessed TIFF versions, in fact you have to, to get a useable image. TIFFs can also be output at various other points along the image pipe - say after sensor gamma correction to convert from the linear capture space, but before white balance adjustments or sharpening.

For more info on TIFF
The Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) was designed from the ground up to alleviate the problems associated with fixed file formats. The key word here is designed. TIFF did not evolve from a de-facto standard. It was created to become the industry standard for image-file exchange. TIFF was a super-set of all existing graphics or image file formats. TIFF incorporates enough flexibility to eliminate the need or justification for proprietary image file formats. As a matter of fact, it is possible to store proprietary information in a TIFF file without violating the intent of the format. TIFF was designed with an eye toward the future, not just for use in the present.

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 11:38:18.

Nowhere_Man

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

08/30/2004 11:44:11 AM · #13

ericlimon, these say it all. Very useful diagrams, thanks for the pointer.
(arnarp- another difference I've noticed is that the RAW format takes forever to save on the 828.)

dbyrd

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

08/30/2004 11:45:31 AM · #14

A simple answer is that raw is the equivalent of a negative and you have a choice of output variations. Raw is king as your intitial source and it all depends on what you intend to do wuth the images. For example, one day you may need to go back and produce a top rate print. If you have the raw you stand the best chance for a superior print provided the quality has value.

All the other forms are merely conversions with tiff as the most faithful. My advise is to always shoot raw, but then many camera's have a problem because of their design to remain in a certain price range. If this is unpractical then use Tiff and if this is inconvenient then go go the finest jpeg available.

08/30/2004 12:22:07 PM · #15

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

As I at least tried to point out in my post, this is not always true.

Some TIFF files from the camera may have been processed. Other TIFF files are just the RAW sensor data. Calling a file 'TIFF' is not enough to saying anything at all about what it is - in much the same way saying a bag is green doesn't tell you anything about the contents.

Different manufacturers use the TIFF meta-format in different ways. Kodak for example store the raw, uncompressed, unadjusted sensor data in a TIFF file. Others provide 8 bit, white balanced, sharpened, LZW compressed results in TIFF format.

TIFF defines a generic container format, and does not define anything about the contents or how they have been manipulated. That varies on a camera by camera basis.

I also tend to think that for the majority of photographers, RAW is a waste of their time. It is true that RAW gives you the potential to make a superior final result, compared to a JPEG. But you have to be able to realise that potential. That requires dedication and technical expertise which it seems clear that a lot of photographers don't have the time or inclination to develop.

For those RAW is a bad idea, both because it wastes their time, but also because it gives them inferior results. I think it doesn't do them much good to be made to feel that they are somehow getting bad results because they shoot JPEG.

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 12:28:59.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

08/30/2004 12:31:36 PM · #16

The above post by Gordon is true, but I assume that if Tiff is used by manufacturer to store raw then they would tell you and this is your raw file. Any info on raw can be placed in a tiff. Some manufactures use raw which is propietary format to be open only with their software. I wish they would make it standard and place all raws in tiff and forget this viewer utilities. But each mfg will tell you that they have special features.

GoodEnd

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/30/2004 12:46:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by jimika:

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your college lecturer, shots film, No?
He donÂ´t know nothing about RAW!
RAW is the major update in photography since the camera was invented!
ItÂ´s data can be used to recriate the exposure, change the white balance and other future implementation.

RAW is the Digital equivalent to the film. But films only record the image, like your TIFF file. TIFF is loseless, but has only the image.
RAW data has the image sensor data on the moment of exposure, more the camera settings used to aquire that data. ItÂ´s data is not Image. Than, you can translate it to image out of the camera controling this process step by step in computers very powerfull than your camera image processor.

TIFF can be used to do the same... but if you can view it on your standard application it has no more than image.

This is RAW.

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 12:51:26.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

08/30/2004 12:57:28 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

It is true that RAW gives you the potential to make a superior final result, compared to a JPEG. But you have to be able to realise that potential. That requires dedication and technical expertise which it seems clear that a lot of photographers don't have the time or inclination to develop.

What kind of technical expertise do you have to develop and be proficient in to realize the full benefits of RAW?
Thanks.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/30/2004 01:32:00 PM · #19

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Gordon:

It is true that RAW gives you the potential to make a superior final result, compared to a JPEG. But you have to be able to realise that potential. That requires dedication and technical expertise which it seems clear that a lot of photographers don't have the time or inclination to develop.

What kind of technical expertise do you have to develop and be proficient in to realize the full benefits of RAW?
Thanks.

Correct white balance selection
Tasteful use of saturation
Meaningful adjustment of contrast
Proper sharpening technique
Shadow and highlight management

Just for starters. From what I've seen, many RAW users would get as good if not better results using the JPEG that the camera would produce. Sharpening and saturation in particular are often applied with a heavy and clumsy hand.

Potential for a better result, is just that. Potential. You have to be able to realise it. More rope to hang yourself with.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

08/30/2004 01:45:15 PM · #20

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by Gordon:

It is true that RAW gives you the potential to make a superior final result, compared to a JPEG. But you have to be able to realise that potential. That requires dedication and technical expertise which it seems clear that a lot of photographers don't have the time or inclination to develop.

What kind of technical expertise do you have to develop and be proficient in to realize the full benefits of RAW?
Thanks.

Correct white balance selection
Tasteful use of saturation
Meaningful adjustment of contrast
Proper sharpening technique
Shadow and highlight management

Just for starters. From what I've seen, many RAW users would get as good if not better results using the JPEG that the camera would produce. Sharpening and saturation in particular are often applied with a heavy and clumsy hand.

Potential for a better result, is just that. Potential. You have to be able to realise it. More rope to hang yourself with.

Thanks Gordon. My 2mp dinosaur does not have RAW file capabilities, unless the TIFF file is the RAW kind, but I don't think so. As such, I've had no experience with RAW file manipulation and processing but I do imagine that it would be something over time and with preserverence that anyone can learn. Just like it takes time to learn PS, or use of flash, and proper composition...etc. Perhaps it would be best for anyone thinking of RAW file processing to get software developed soley for this purpose, such as Capture One by Phase one. I think it gives more control over manipulation. It's only $99 for the LE version.